Where are all the women?

[vfr]

Seem to be all men here. What do women have to say about all this stuff? Do women even ponder such things?

I posted this inquiry on anther forum and was accused of being a sexist. But I really do not know what women think about? I can only go by the participation at my forums and I see little or no women at the philosophy forums.

Where are all the women?



V (Male) For free access to my earlier posts on voluntary simplicity, compulsive spending, debting, compulsive overeating and clutter write: vfr44@aol.com. Any opinion expressed here is that of my own and is not the opinion or belief of any group or organization.

[Chris Porter]

I'm female. Very few people seem to believe me, because they claim I don't "write like a girl".

Yeah. Whatever.

[Viti]

Women don't need to discuss Philosophy because we already know all the answers ;)

[vfr]

I'm female. Very few people seem to believe me, because they claim I don't "write like a girl".

Yeah. Whatever.

It would be nice to have gender listed with names...or as an option.


V

[Chris Porter]

You can do what I do--use "it" until the other does some sort of confirmation.

Or, ser, sie (it, its), a common gender neutral term.

Some people don't want their gender known. It's prevalent by females throughout the Western world, in fact, for hundreds of years.

[mirage]

I'm female. Very few people seem to believe me, because they claim I don't "write like a girl".

Yeah. Whatever.

Yep, called Christopher and not even little circles and hearts over your "i"s. You're not fooling anyone, fella.

[Chris Porter]

My "Yeah. Whatever." had to do with my impression that believing one is able to guess the gender of a person by what or how they write is a loser's game, and unfitting for intelligent people to indulge in. I suggest avoiding it.

No, I don't believe "he, him" is gender neutral. Read enough papers on experiments that show that it's not usually the case that people actually believe it's gender neutral when they use it.

"Man is a mammal: he bears his young live and suckles them at his breasts." (http://www.aetherlumina.com/gnp/references.html)

[Karen M]

sshhhh... I'm not really here ;)

[Earl]

The question isn’t why women don’t participate much in internet philosophy forums; rather, the question is why women don’t participate much on the internet, and the answer is clear: more men than women are the sort of social outcasts who are reduced to spending much of their time writing on the internet, downloading porn, and so forth. The reason for this, in turn, is that women have greater power to make men happy than men have to make women happy, largely because women are harder to please.

This point was made in a Woody Allen movie (Husbands and Wives?) in which Allen repeats the cliché that the different circumstances faced by men and women can be compared to those faced by the egg and by the sperm. The egg gets to sit back and wait for the frenzied sperm to compete with each other until the best one wins. To please women, men have had for thousands of years to enter ruthless competition to acquire the resources to keep the woman safe and comfortable when she gives birth and rears the children, whereas to please men women simply have had to spread their legs. Women have had a harder time acquiring their own resources because Mother Nature has saddled them with more reproductive functions, and thus the expectation has arisen that women have more private than public responsibilities.

At least, this is pretty much the conclusion of evolutionary psychologists. It explains the double standard in most societies according to which men are praised for having sex with multiple partners whereas women are expected to focus on caring for the children and for the household. Oh, perhaps none of this is innate except for the biological functions; the gender roles can be altered, and in modern societies women have sought equal economic opportunities and responsibilities. But there remain the inertia of hundreds of thousands of years of sexual inequality to overcome, and the question of the most efficient way of dividing up social responsibilities, given the different biological functions. Perhaps even the biological limitations can be overcome with technology.

Anyway, the point is that given that men are easier to please than women, men are satisfied even with the kind of pornography with which the internet is mainly concerned, and with the kind of impoverished relationships which the internet is capable of supporting. Women, however, want not just immediate gratification, for example, but a guarantee of their safety and financial security during the period when women’s biological function renders them vulnerable. Since such security requires marriage rather than merely flashing pictures on a computer screen, there are fewer women than men on the internet. Therefore, there are fewer women than men in internet philosophy forums.

If we put aside the question of philosophy on the internet and ask why there are so few great female philosophers in the Western tradition, part of the answer, of course, is that women weren’t generally permitted to have the necessary education but were expected to focus on their distinctive biological function and on related tasks. Moreover, men and women think differently. For example, as Carol Gilligan argued in response to Kohlberg’s biased scale of moral reasoning, men think in terms of the impartial application of abstract rules whereas women think in terms of caring for concrete individuals who have emotional relationships. To make philosophy rigorous, philosophers tend to argue about objective rules and principles, ones which are abstract and therefore publicly available rather than subjective and context-dependent. For this reason, women might not have felt at home in the Western philosophical tradition.

[vfr]

[QUOTE=Chris Porter;3722249]You can do what I do--use "it" until the other does some sort of confirmation.

Or, ser, sie (it, its), a common gender neutral term.

Why be ashamed of gender? Sexual harassment or something else?

I noticed this at esangha, where I was recently banned. The moderators would not reply to my request for their gender so I could address them appropriately. After numerous failed requests, I called them 'he / she' and the like.

On other lists, I got tired of people addressing 'V' as she, so I started listing 'male' at the end of my posts Although this still does not solve all gender problems. One lady moderator wrote me to say she did not like me soliciting for 'gay lovers' by listing my male gender that way.



V

[Chris Porter]

I don't think it's shame, so much as it's sexual harrassment. Earl is partly right--some men simply don't know how to behave politely around women, and some women don't want the hassle of dealing with those kinds of men. And a lot of those men appear to be on the internet. A simple solution is to assume a name that's likely male, or rely on people's assumptions that everyone on the internet is menfolk.

So, just call 'em "it" or "ser" or "he/she". I don't get the point of wanting to know someone's gender. If they offer it, use it. If they don't, don't address them as if you know it. To me, that seems the most polite way to handle the issue.

If you need to talk only to men, or only to women, make sure to point it out at the beginning of a post. No guarantee only men or women will respond, but at least you get your own point across.

eta: I'm simply too old to scarred by harrassment. Nowadays, it's just amusing.

[vfr]

The question isn’t why women don’t participate much in internet philosophy forums; rather, the question is why women don’t participate much on the internet, and the answer is clear: more men than women are the sort of social outcasts who are reduced to spending much of their time writing on the internet, downloading porn, and so forth. The reason for this, in turn, is that women have greater power to make men happy than men have to make women happy, largely because women are harder to please.


"more men than women are the sort of social outcasts who are reduced to spending much of their time writing on the internet, downloading porn, and so forth."


I would disagree with some of your post. Women make up almost 95% to 100% of some other lists I am on such as: overeating, compulsive spending, codependents, etc. So there are some areas where it is the opposite and one must ask where are the men on these forums? There are plenty of men with such troubles.

The part about happiness you wrote about...I can't argue with that.




V

[vfr]

I don't think it's shame, so much as it's sexual harrassment. Earl is partly right--some men simply don't know how to behave politely around women, and some women don't want the hassle of dealing with those kinds of men. And a lot of those men appear to be on the internet. A simple solution is to assume a name that's likely male, or rely on people's assumptions that everyone on the internet is menfolk.

So, just call 'em "it" or "ser" or "he/she". I don't get the point of wanting to know someone's gender. If they offer it, use it. If they don't, don't address them as if you know it. To me, that seems the most polite way to handle the issue.

If you need to talk only to men, or only to women, make sure to point it out at the beginning of a post. No guarantee only men or women will respond, but at least you get your own point across.


Ah, self defense. Sexual harassing members should not be tolerated. Although, it is the nature of men to delve into such sexual discussions, that may be construed as harassment by some females, even when they are not intended to be.

V

[vfr]

This point was made in a Woody Allen movie (Husbands and Wives?) in which Allen repeats the cliché that the different circumstances faced by men and women can be compared to those faced by the egg and by the sperm. The egg gets to sit back and wait for the frenzied sperm to compete with each other until the best one wins. To please women, men have had for thousands of years to enter ruthless competition to acquire the resources to keep the woman safe and comfortable when she gives birth and rears the children, whereas to please men women simply have had to spread their legs. Women have had a harder time acquiring their own resources because Mother Nature has saddled them with more reproductive functions, and thus the expectation has arisen that women have more private than public responsibilities.

At least, this is pretty much the conclusion of evolutionary psychologists. It explains the double standard in most societies according to which men are praised for having sex with multiple partners whereas women are expected to focus on caring for the children and for the household. Oh, perhaps none of this is innate except for the biological functions; the gender roles can be altered, and in modern societies women have sought equal economic opportunities and responsibilities. But there remain the inertia of hundreds of thousands of years of sexual inequality to overcome, and the question of the most efficient way of dividing up social responsibilities, given the different biological functions. Perhaps even the biological limitations can be overcome with technology.

Anyway, the point is that given that men are easier to please than women, men are satisfied even with the kind of pornography with which the internet is mainly concerned, and with the kind of impoverished relationships which the internet is capable of supporting. Women, however, want not just immediate gratification, for example, but a guarantee of their safety and financial security during the period when women’s biological function renders them vulnerable. Since such security requires marriage rather than merely flashing pictures on a computer screen, there are fewer women than men on the internet. Therefore, there are fewer women than men in internet philosophy forums.

If we put aside the question of philosophy on the internet and ask why there are so few great female philosophers in the Western tradition, part of the answer, of course, is that women weren’t generally permitted to have the necessary education but were expected to focus on their distinctive biological function and on related tasks. Moreover, men and women think differently. For example, as Carol Gilligan argued in response to Kohlberg’s biased scale of moral reasoning, men think in terms of the impartial application of abstract rules whereas women think in terms of caring for concrete individuals who have emotional relationships. To make philosophy rigorous, philosophers tend to argue about objective rules and principles, ones which are abstract and therefore publicly available rather than subjective and context-dependent. For this reason, women might not have felt at home in the Western philosophical tradition.


Thanks for your well spoken reply Earl.

This brings up another subject: are women philosophers more open to such gender discussions such as this one?

If you had posted your reply at my old Buddhists forum, under the women's section there, you most likely would have received much hate mail from the women. At this 'philosophy' section, reason seems to be forefront of passions with the women here.

Many subscribe to the politically correct, but wrong view that all creatures are equal. In any case, I do not feel the need to apologize for the difference between a male and female - that is what makes them unique and is part of natural law. Either something is true or not, that is the bottom line. Men and women will never be equal, nor should they be. Men are not better than women and women are not better than men - they are just different as well as the same. Every creature has it's way and when we can come to peace with this we will be on our OWN way to finding peace.


"Were I a nightingale, I would act the part of a nightingale; were I a swan, the part of a swan." Epictetus


V

[sweetiepie]

I agree pretty much with Chris, if you want everyone to 'know' you're a woman, call yourself Mary. If you want everyone to 'know' you're a man, call yourself Bill.
I frankly would rather not know everyone's gender, and would like them not to know mine. Nothing good can come from it and plenty of bad can.
As for pronouns, I find 'he/she' unaesthetic, and 'it' ridiculous-- as the term generally refers to non-persons.
People who get offended "he" or "she" tend to be too sexist for my patience anyway.

[Earl]

Vfr,

You say you “do not feel the need to apologize for the difference between a male and female - that is what makes them unique and is part of natural law. Either something is true or not, that is the bottom line. Men and women will never be equal, nor should they be. Men are not better than women and women are not better than men - they are just different as well as the same.”

The appeal to natural law doesn’t do much work, since evidently one ability which is at least indirectly the product of natural selection is our ability to take control of our own evolution by means of technological mastery of nature. In using social organization and technology, we follow our own artificial intentions and prescriptions which are subsets of natural law. For example, women can now control their reproductive process with birth control pills, cesarean section, in vitro fertilization, and so on. Soon will come cloning and the artificial selection of genes. Like I said, even the biological differences can be erased with technology.

When you say that men and women should not be equal, you have to be careful. Shouldn’t women and men have equal basic opportunities? You’re appealing, in effect, to such clichés as “variety is the spice of life” and “vive la difference,” and these are fine as far as they go. But there is no guarantee that all natural differences ought to be celebrated. On the contrary, for the last several thousand years we’ve been busy improving on nature and on our own genetically favourable behaviour, having recognized that nature is far from perfect. The biological differences between the sexes have been partly responsible for the miserable circumstances of many women, the expectation having arisen that since nature or God designed women to give birth and to feed children, women should focus on those responsibilities and shouldn’t worry about being educated or about acquiring the means to take care of themselves or to run society.

Sexism, which might minimally be taken to be the focus on differences between the sexes, becomes a problem when men concoct myths to rationalize a self-serving social hierarchy which oppresses women. We seem to have the freedom to thumb our noses at Mother Nature and at her micro technology (the genes, proteins, and so forth). We get to decide how to govern our lives and what our species will become, and that decision is based as much on social and on ethical prescriptions as on physical, immutable laws. Thus we have to ask how different ought men and women to be.

[finix]

You can do what I do--use "it" until the other does some sort of confirmation.

Or, ser, sie (it, its), a common gender neutral term.


Do you really refer to other people as "it"? I guess I'd be vastly more easily offended by "it" than a wrong "she" et al - though most likely I'd be in stitches or in fact quite bewildered by this abuse of language.

Anyway, if a posters gender isn't immediately as 'obvious' as "Bill" or "Ted" I avoid personal pronouns altogether until the gender's given away by the very person in question or some other poster.
It's normally not that hard to carefully construct your sentences and it reads, IMAO, a lot better than ludicrous concoctions along the lines of "s/he"; I've practised this tactic all my life due to the very related problem of the distinction between formal and informal 'you' in my native language.

[untermensche]

....more men than women are the sort of social outcasts who are reduced to spending much of their time writing on the internet, downloading porn, and so forth. The reason for this, in turn, is that women have greater power to make men happy than men have to make women happy, largely because women are harder to please.

Is this a haven for social outcasts?

I had no idea.

I feel dirty having been in their company without knowing.

Uchhh!!!

[kennethamy]

I'm female. Very few people seem to believe me, because they claim I don't "write like a girl".

Yeah. Whatever.

How about just that your name seems to be masculine? Nothing to do with your writing. When I reply to your posts, your sex does not even occur to me.

[Breath]

It would be nice to have gender listed with names...or as an option.
V

Nice for what?

I would reckon that the discussion of philosophical ideas is hindered by autobiographical material.

[Chris Porter]

How about just that your name seems to be masculine? Nothing to do with your writing. When I reply to your posts, your sex does not even occur to me.

Chris isn't masculine. There were three Chris's in my junior high school class, and they were all female. So saying "seems to be masculine" strikes me as ...

US database of given names, Census 1990
Christine: Rank 43
Christopher: Rank 11

Fourtythird out of over four thousand does not let 'Chris' be a vanishingly small chance of being female.

[Chris Porter]

Do you really refer to other people as "it"? I guess I'd be vastly more easily offended by "it" than a wrong "she" et al - though most likely I'd be in stitches or in fact quite bewildered by this abuse of language.In stiches or offended--would you immediately grasp I have no idea what the gender is of the person to whom I'm refering? I do indeed use it, as I have no need for other's gender unless supplied, and I'm also too lazy to go to the expense of restructuring sentences to avoid pronouns. I'd use ser, sie more frequently, but I find I have to explain them. Well, I do restate sentences to avoid pronouns, a lot of the time. But not all the time.
Anyway, if a posters gender isn't immediately as 'obvious' as "Bill" or "Ted" I avoid personal pronouns altogether until the gender's given away by the very person in question or some other poster.Me, too.
It's normally not that hard to carefully construct your sentences and it reads, IMAO, a lot better than ludicrous concoctions along the lines of "s/he"; I've practised this tactic all my life due to the very related problem of the distinction between formal and informal 'you' in my native language.

Gendered pronouns are a doggone silly affectation of English language and I personally wish them dead, dead, dead.

[finix]

In stiches or offended--would you immediately grasp I have no idea what the gender is of the person to whom I'm refering?

Sure. To tell you the truth, I for one wouldn't be offended by its usage - I'm pretty laid-back a person myself, but I can imagine others might be; cf. "Whaddaya mean, humans are animals?". I wouldn't exactly be in stitches, either, but it positively does sound totally weird.

(As I said, I tend to successfully avoid these words until I can more or less confidently deploy the correct pronouns; but, also, I've no trouble reading 'he' or, increasingly, 'she' as gender-neutral in publications.)


Anyway, you're totally wrong about the gender of 'Chris': it's undisputably masculine. I know, right off the bat, exactly one female Chris, one female Kris, but I could list you male Chris's for eternity, which'd make me an expert on that matter even if I wasn't a 'Chris' myself, which I am, so duh! :Cheeky:

[credoconsolans]

For the OP, we women are here. What would be the point of putting our gender on our IDs? We're here to discuss and to exchange ideas. Who cares from what sex the discussion comes?

The question isn’t why women don’t participate much in internet philosophy forums; rather, the question is why women don’t participate much on the internet, and the answer is clear: more men than women are the sort of social outcasts who are reduced to spending much of their time writing on the internet, downloading porn, and so forth

Hmmm, my answer would be for the same reason husbands take off to play 18 rounds of golf on a Sunday leaving the wife at home. The joke is that the wife would like to go, but there is 'too much work to do without both of us wasting our time'. :Cheeky:

This point was made in a Woody Allen movie (Husbands and Wives?) in which Allen repeats the cliché that the different circumstances faced by men and women can be compared to those faced by the egg and by the sperm.

Woody Allen has always been sexist. :mad:

To please women, men have had for thousands of years to enter ruthless competition to acquire the resources to keep the woman safe and comfortable when she gives birth and rears the children, whereas to please men women simply have had to spread their legs.

As opposed to the biological knowledge now known that women's reproductive systems have to keep their pH just so for the sperm survival and motility, that once the sperm coverge on the egg and break through, it's the egg that keeps them from escaping and indeed, pulls them forward.

The egg, women's reproductive systems and women themselves are hardly 'passive' participants in anything. Hence the thousands upon thousands of years of men's attempts to control women and their sexuality to keep from us from straying to any pretty face or well off guy with 3 legs that we see.

the question of the most efficient way of dividing up social responsibilities, given the different biological functions. Perhaps even the biological limitations can be overcome with technology.

It's just tradition and culture. After all, in some agrarian societies, men go out to tend the fields so women can stay in the home and care for children. Then in other societies, men loll around the village dealing with hierarchies, politics and cattle while women with babies on their backs go tend the fields. It's obvious that nothing's 'innate'.

Anyway, the point is that given that men are easier to please than women

Men are almost impossible to please. Women have to turn into a totally different woman every few weeks to keep their interest. :rolleyes:

Moreover, men and women think differently. For example, as Carol Gilligan argued in response to Kohlberg’s biased scale of moral reasoning, men think in terms of the impartial application of abstract rules whereas women think in terms of caring for concrete individuals who have emotional relationships. To make philosophy rigorous, philosophers tend to argue about objective rules and principles, ones which are abstract and therefore publicly available rather than subjective and context-dependent. For this reason, women might not have felt at home in the Western philosophical tradition.

I agree that when one sex makes the rules for a philosophy, it might not be an attractive forum for the other sex.

[Earl]

CREDOCONSOLANS: The egg, women's reproductive systems and women themselves are hardly 'passive' participants in anything. Hence the thousands upon thousands of years of men's attempts to control women and their sexuality to keep from us from straying to any pretty face or well off guy with 3 legs that we see.”

EARL: Who are you quoting when you object to the claim that women are “passive”? I never used this word, nor did I mean to imply anything like this. So the egg’s activity is irrelevant to my point. There’s but one egg for millions of sperm. The egg sits back not in the sense that the egg does nothing at all, but in the sense that the egg lets the sperm compete among themselves before exercising the finishing touches on the one that breaks through. Of course, this is just a metaphor for social relations between men and women.

I’m sure you’re right that men have put forward the myth that women are passive, asexual creatures. Of course women can be promiscuous and can cuckold their husbands. But I’d expect that those modern women who have control over their reproductive functions would be more likely to be promiscuous, not caring so much about the potential reproductive consequences, than the majority of women who ever lived who’ve had little such control and have had to depend on others to support them during pregnancy. Thus women’s promiscuity is the exception that proves the rule. The rule is that the social conflict between the sexes is a consequence of the difference between the reproductive functions. The point isn’t that these social relations are innate; instead, the social relations are heavily influenced by the biological functions which themselves are innate. Even though women may be interested in sex just like men, women have an additional set of needs having to do with their biologically imposed vulnerability during pregnancy and child rearing. Men don’t have those needs. Thus the social asymmetry, the double standard, and the exceptions that prove the rule.

Even when women are promiscuous, most cultures tend to frown on female promiscuity even while glorifying the male kind. Promiscuous women are regarded as whores whereas promiscuous men are regarded as studs. I think this is because of lower expectations of men rather than because of fear of female sexuality. Men are expected to be promiscuous because men are easier to please and thus easier to tempt. Women aren’t expected to be promiscuous, because of the debilitating impact of reproduction on women. Women are harder to please in that women require not just sexual gratification but also financial security and thus powerful men. Of course, some women--especially in modern societies--secure their own financial resources, but again this is the exception that proves the rule, since this success on women’s part tends to come at the expense of their reproductive function. The norm is that women either have the means to control their reproductive function (contraception, abortion, etc), and thus have the freedom to be promiscuous, or else choose to rank their potential mates according to how willing the women would be to depend on them during the women’s biologically imposed vulnerable years.



CREDOCONSOLANS: Men are almost impossible to please. Women have to turn into a totally different woman every few weeks to keep their interest.

EARL: What, by changing their makeup? Women want powerful mates whereas men just want beautiful ones. It’s a stereotype and there are exceptions and various qualifications that have to be made, but this simplified claim which comes out of evolutionary psychology explains an awful lot.

[credoconsolans]

EARL: Who are you quoting when you object to the claim that women are “passive”? I never used this word, nor did I mean to imply anything like this.

Well, when you say things like: The egg gets to sit back and wait or whereas to please men women simply have had to spread their legs I'm not sure how much more you can imply a certain passivity.

So the egg’s activity is irrelevant to my point.

Well, I think the fact destroyed your point of egg=women, passive egg=passive women.

the egg lets the sperm compete among themselves before exercising the finishing touches on the one that breaks through. Of course, this is just a metaphor for social relations between men and women.

Well, if you'll excuse the expression you're anthropomorphizing. The egg doesn't 'let' the sperm do anything. And the sperm are not 'competing' against each other. They are merely trying to reach a goal. Whatever sperm gets there first is irrelevant. It's still sperm from the same donor carrying the exact same DNA material (in one partner sex).

But I’d expect that those modern women who have control over their reproductive functions would be more likely to be promiscuous, not caring so much about the potential reproductive consequences, than the majority of women who ever lived who’ve had little such control and have had to depend on others to support them during pregnancy.

You would think. But modern women have to fight millennia of social conditioning and double standards whereas women of ancient hunter-gatherer societies probably had less such burdens - having sex and children was probably encouraged when times were good. In less ancient times, herbal and mechanical contraceptives have been used as were mechanical and herbal abortifacients. It's likely they were used then as well.

Even though women may be interested in sex just like men, women have an additional set of needs having to do with their biologically imposed vulnerability during pregnancy and child rearing.

Hence the contraceptives and abortifacients and probably encouraging sex that didn't include penetration.

Even when women are promiscuous, most cultures tend to frown on female promiscuity even while glorifying the male kind. Promiscuous women are regarded as whores whereas promiscuous men are regarded as studs.

Most cultures are patriarchal. They would think this way, wouldn't they? Giving men all the freedom and status while not extending the same freedoms and status to women for the same actions.

I think this is because of lower expectations of men rather than because of fear of female sexuality.

I disagree. It's because of much credit given to men by men. Hence the cult of the phallus where pricks are good luck and fertility symbols and symbols of strength, but women's sex organs are devouring and evil and weak. Being on the receiving end of sex has almost always been in recorded history a sign of weakness. This attitude is not one where men don't think well of themselves. They most certainly do seeing as for most of history women were not given the same rights or freedoms as men because they weren't capable and were 'lesser' humans.

History and modern life was/is full of societies where 'pleasing' women was/is not a goal. Women aren't/weren't there to be pleased. They were/are there to serve. Religion backs men up in this attitude.

Of course, some women--especially in modern societies--secure their own financial resources, but again this is the exception that proves the rule, since this success on women’s part tends to come at the expense of their reproductive function.

Only in a business world where men are the majority of those in charge. If women were the majority in the business world, it is probably likely that for a woman to take time off to have a child would not be an impediment to her financial success.

CREDOCONSOLANS: Men are almost impossible to please. Women have to turn into a totally different woman every few weeks to keep their interest.

EARL: What, by changing their makeup? Women want powerful mates whereas men just want beautiful ones. It’s a stereotype and there are exceptions and various qualifications that have to be made, but this simplified claim which comes out of evolutionary psychology explains an awful lot.

As you pointed out, evolutionarily speaking, men are designed to want to spread their seed around. Meaning, they prefer a variety of women. Thus, a woman cannot depend on her mate's monogamous interest lasting. His attention will stray. So it is kind of hard for a woman to keep her man happy and interested when what he wants is another different woman. She can't turn herself into someone different.

[Breath]

Most cultures are patriarchal. They would think this way, wouldn't they? Giving men all the freedom and status while not extending the same freedoms and status to women for the same actions.


You make it sound as though men not only control women, they have control over themselves as well. Do you see evolution playing a role at all in the way things are?

[Bright Life]

I agree pretty much with Chris, if you want everyone to 'know' you're a woman, call yourself Mary. If you want everyone to 'know' you're a man, call yourself Bill.
I frankly would rather not know everyone's gender, and would like them not to know mine. Nothing good can come from it and plenty of bad can.
As for pronouns, I find 'he/she' unaesthetic, and 'it' ridiculous-- as the term generally refers to non-persons.
People who get offended "he" or "she" tend to be too sexist for my patience anyway.

Why the feminine name, then?

[Minnesota Joe]

My "Yeah. Whatever." had to do with my impression that believing one is able to guess the gender of a person by what or how they write is a loser's game, and unfitting for intelligent people to indulge in. I suggest avoiding it.

Yeah, it strikes me as something akin to handwriting analysis for job interviews.

[vfr]

I agree pretty much with Chris, if you want everyone to 'know' you're a woman, call yourself Mary. If you want everyone to 'know' you're a man, call yourself Bill.
I frankly would rather not know everyone's gender, and would like them not to know mine. Nothing good can come from it and plenty of bad can.
As for pronouns, I find 'he/she' unaesthetic, and 'it' ridiculous-- as the term generally refers to non-persons.
People who get offended "he" or "she" tend to be too sexist for my patience anyway.

"Nothing good can come from it and plenty of bad can."


V:

No good to come of it?

I disagree.

I like to know the views of women and as such need to know the gender of the poster. We can see this very clearly in this discussion at hand. The women discuss whether or not they will divulge their gender and the men seem to be on another area of more in depth discussion.

So gender is very, very important to see the entire spectrum of thought. Only 'small minded' thinkers would argue this fact.

Yesterday I discussed some of Earls comments with my wife to hear her views and low and behold she offered some insight from her point of view. Although her gender is obvious, I still needed to 'know her gender' to seek this out.


As far as only bad to come of it?

We are all anonymous for the most part. A rapist will not track you down as long as you are anonymous.

Harassing mail?

Send it back to the source and ask them to stop in public. I get plenty of harassing personal mail, from women. (although not of a sexual nature of harassment from the women) I always send it back to the source (list / forum) to discuss it in public.

I will agree with you that it may cause more hassles for women in general though.

Hiding behavior is a signpost of dis-ease. And no matter how we justify hiding, it still undermines our peace. Each women would have to weigh the pros and cons of this for herself.



V (Male) For free access to my earlier posts on voluntary simplicity, compulsive spending, debting, compulsive overeating and clutter write: vfr44@aol.com. Any opinion expressed here is that of my own and is not the opinion or belief of any group or organization.

[Viti]

"more men than women are the sort of social outcasts who are reduced to spending much of their time writing on the internet, downloading porn, and so forth."


I would disagree with some of your post. Women make up almost 95% to 100% of some other lists I am on such as: overeating, compulsive spending, codependents, etc. So there are some areas where it is the opposite and one must ask where are the men on these forums? There are plenty of men with such troubles.
V
Men are underrepresented on the types of support forums I frequent as well; parenting, fertility issues, adoption.

I find fewer women here are at II discussing their existential angst though...most of the "How do we live in a world with no meaning" type stuff and long lists of life issues in one post seems to come frome males.

Perhaps women seek support on individual specific issues more and men tend to see all issues as a single big problem?

[vfr]

Vfr,

You say you “do not feel the need to apologize for the difference between a male and female - that is what makes them unique and is part of natural law. Either something is true or not, that is the bottom line. Men and women will never be equal, nor should they be. Men are not better than women and women are not better than men - they are just different as well as the same.”

The appeal to natural law doesn’t do much work, since evidently one ability which is at least indirectly the product of natural selection is our ability to take control of our own evolution by means of technological mastery of nature. In using social organization and technology, we follow our own artificial intentions and prescriptions which are subsets of natural law. For example, women can now control their reproductive process with birth control pills, cesarean section, in vitro fertilization, and so on. Soon will come cloning and the artificial selection of genes. Like I said, even the biological differences can be erased with technology.

When you say that men and women should not be equal, you have to be careful. Shouldn’t women and men have equal basic opportunities? You’re appealing, in effect, to such clichés as “variety is the spice of life” and “vive la difference,” and these are fine as far as they go. But there is no guarantee that all natural differences ought to be celebrated. On the contrary, for the last several thousand years we’ve been busy improving on nature and on our own genetically favourable behaviour, having recognized that nature is far from perfect. The biological differences between the sexes have been partly responsible for the miserable circumstances of many women, the expectation having arisen that since nature or God designed women to give birth and to feed children, women should focus on those responsibilities and shouldn’t worry about being educated or about acquiring the means to take care of themselves or to run society.

Sexism, which might minimally be taken to be the focus on differences between the sexes, becomes a problem when men concoct myths to rationalize a self-serving social hierarchy which oppresses women. We seem to have the freedom to thumb our noses at Mother Nature and at her micro technology (the genes, proteins, and so forth). We get to decide how to govern our lives and what our species will become, and that decision is based as much on social and on ethical prescriptions as on physical, immutable laws. Thus we have to ask how different ought men and women to be.



Natural Law?

Yes, we can bend natural law Earl, but no matter how much we try we always end up bowing to nature in the end. The moment we rule natural law completely is the moment we become God.

Regarding equality?

Yes, many subscribe to the politically correct, but wrong view that all creatures are equal. We are equal in some respects and not equal; in others. I noticed this especially at my old Buddhist forum where women went out of their way to try to make the sexes equal in all respects. They are not equal in all respects. Women have areas they are better than men in and men are better in other areas.

Celebration?

Do men not celebrate the differences in the sexes as their basic foundation for happiness or the 'spreading of the legs' as you put earlier Earl? If we were the same, not much fun in that unless one is homosexual. Variety is the spice of life...to a degree. Again balance and proportionality come to the forefront Earl.


"People who dedicate their lives to the pursuit of sensual pleasure find
that the more pleasure they get, the more they want. Small, ordinary
pleasures soon lose their power to please and must be replaced with
more intense or exotic ones. Heedless sensualists usually meet a bad
end. They learn the hard way that their desires are relentless and
insatiable." From: How to Want What You Have


Expectation?

Expectations are all in human's or man's mind Earl. Just as Pluto was once a planet and is now not a planet, so women and the ideas about them have come and gone. All problems are created in the mind Earl.

"Thus we have to ask how different ought men and women to be"

Yes, the early Greeks asked this question of what constitutes a flourishing human life. We just have to go back to the basics to look for the answer. Putting our peace first always helps us decide this question as well Earl.






V (Male) For free access to my earlier posts on voluntary simplicity, compulsive spending, debting, compulsive overeating and clutter write: vfr44@aol.com. Any opinion expressed here is that of my own and is not the opinion or belief of any group or organization.

[vfr]

Know ones gender?

"Nice for what? I would reckon that the discussion of philosophical ideas is hindered by autobiographical material."

And..."For the OP, we women are here. What would be the point of putting our gender on our IDs? We're here to discuss and to exchange ideas. Who cares from what sex the discussion comes?"


see my discussion of this topic from these earlier posts.

http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showpost.php?p=3724483&postcount=30


http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showpost.php?p=3722781&postcount=14




V

[Chris Porter]

I think the issue is one of Philosophy itself. It seems to me that philosophy is a leisure activity, one can only engage in philosophizing after the chores of survival have been met, the washing, cleaning, housing, feeding issues. If one doesn't have these time-taking tasks to accomplish, one can sit down for a real good, long think about things. Or, one can live in such a way as to have others support them, others to provide food, clothing, housing and so on. Blessed with the freedom from these tasks, one can concentrate on things philosophical.

In the past, it has been the case that it has been men that were supported by others, and thus free to pursue book learning and philosophy, as their servants provided the background survival chores for them. With abundant free time, men could pursue all kinds of knowledge, from mathematics to philosophy, to religion.

Compared to men, very few women had the opportunity to all that free time, as they mostly spent their days supporting men. So it seems to me that there are concrete reasons women have not apparently contributed to philosophy or math or science or religion in the same numbers as have men. The reason being, pursuit of such requires free time, and that free time was provided at a cost of less free time to women.

[vfr]

Men are underrepresented on the types of support forums I frequent as well; parenting, fertility issues, adoption.

I find fewer women here are at II discussing their existential angst though...most of the "How do we live in a world with no meaning" type stuff and long lists of life issues in one post seems to come frome males.

Perhaps women seek support on individual specific issues more and men tend to see all issues as a single big problem?

LadyShea: Perhaps women seek support on individual specific issues more and men tend to see all issues as a single big problem?

V: Maybe, although I like to break stuff down into components. I do not have much brain power to juggle it all at once.

v

[Earl]

Credoconsolans,

You’ve beat up on a strawperson version of the point about the egg and the sperm. Recall that what I said is that “the different circumstances faced by men and women can be *compared* to those faced by the egg and by the sperm.” I didn’t say that the egg = woman and that the sperm = man. We’re talking about a metaphor and about the relation of similarity, not the relation of identity. Wherever there’s mere similarity there’s difference as well. Perhaps this particular metaphor is more trouble than it’s worth. Just to get some facts straight, though, the sperm don’t have exactly the same genetic material. Some have X-chromosomes and some have Y-chromosomes, which determines the sex of the fetus. Also, some sperm are defective swimmers; for example, they may have only stumps for tails.

The other main point is that I should amend what I said about the “lower expectation” of males when it comes to promiscuity. What I wanted to say is that the evolutionary reason for the double standard is that men are objectively easier to tempt because men have less to lose, given the prospect of reproduction. On top of this evolutionary reason, however, there are many cultural reasons offered, such as myths, stereotypes, prejudices, rationalizations, and so forth, including the ones you listed regarding the cult of the phallus. These cultural reasons are mostly bogus.

You point out that even in premodern times there were primitive forms of birth control, but this only adds to the exceptions that prove the rule. If you’re right, this means only that it’s arbitrary to talk about “modern” women as the exceptions. In any case, for a few hundred thousand years our ancestors lived in caves and presumably lacked even primitive methods of birth control. During that time, promiscuous women who became pregnant would have had to secure protection from someone or other--usually the mate who himself couldn’t become similarly vulnerable. Of course, at that time there was no means of proving the identity of a child’s father. But assume that a woman cuckolded her mate, and that her promiscuity was discovered. The mate might get jealous and choose not to protect her (or even to kill her and the rival).

Although you’re right that in prehistoric times women might have been encouraged to have children--there were more than enough resources to go around--those times were also more brutal, and thus women had even more to lose for their promiscuity, largely because of the biologically imposed penalty (late trimester of pregnancy and having to feed and care for the infant). Women had more to lose from the consequences of promiscuity, because they still had more reproductive functions than men, and these functions made pregnant mothers uniquely dependent. Perhaps mothers stuck together and cared for each other during their most vulnerable months. Regardless, the point is that in evolutionary terms women are harder to please than men. After all, pleasing women amounts to pleasing the children who are potentially created in the women.

You say “If women were the majority in the business world, it is probably likely that for a woman to take time off to have a child would not be an impediment to her financial success.” But the point is that women have been prevented from being in the majority in the business world, because of women’s additional reproductive functions and related private tasks. Some women choose to focus on their careers, but this tends to happen at the cost of their giving birth to children. Wealthy women can adopt children and hire a nanny, but again these are exceptions that prove the rule. Only by controlling or circumventing the reproductive functions can women hope to eliminate the double standard and women’s dependence on guardians. As I said to vfr, I think it’s quite possible that technology will indeed have these results. There’s no immutable natural law which says that women must depend on men because women are harder to please than men. Since we have the freedom to control our evolution and can choose to obey ethical prescriptions, we’re not slaves to our biology. We can transform ourselves with technology.

[Earl]

CHRIS PORTER: Compared to men, very few women had the opportunity to all that free time, as they mostly spent their days supporting men. So it seems to me that there are concrete reasons women have not apparently contributed to philosophy or math or science or religion in the same numbers as have men. The reason being, pursuit of such requires free time, and that free time was provided at a cost of less free time to women.

EARL: I think women spent most of their time supporting children rather than men. This indirectly supported men, since men needed heirs, and so forth. In any case, women had less free time largely because of their additional reproductive functions. This amounts to saying that women had less free time because women were harder to please than men, which is what I said in my opening post. Women had to care not just for themselves but for the children, which ate up their free time. Once men turned from hunting for food to farming, there was still the need to tend to the children. Since only women could feed them, and since women had a more intense bond with them, women tended to spend their free time caring for the children while men evidently spent their time thinking.

[vfr]

I think the issue is one of Philosophy itself. It seems to me that philosophy is a leisure activity, one can only engage in philosophizing after the chores of survival have been met, the washing, cleaning, housing, feeding issues. If one doesn't have these time-taking tasks to accomplish, one can sit down for a real good, long think about things. Or, one can live in such a way as to have others support them, others to provide food, clothing, housing and so on. Blessed with the freedom from these tasks, one can concentrate on things philosophical.

In the past, it has been the case that it has been men that were supported by others, and thus free to pursue book learning and philosophy, as their servants provided the background survival chores for them. With abundant free time, men could pursue all kinds of knowledge, from mathematics to philosophy, to religion.

Compared to men, very few women had the opportunity to all that free time, as they mostly spent their days supporting men. So it seems to me that there are concrete reasons women have not apparently contributed to philosophy or math or science or religion in the same numbers as have men. The reason being, pursuit of such requires free time, and that free time was provided at a cost of less free time to women.





Yes, and No. ...I do much 'working meditation' myself and have made my biggest breakthroughs doing working meditation. (albeit...not all work is conducive to such practice).

Here is an old post to my Buddhist list on this subject Even if you are short of time, you can benefit from such a a practice with just as few minutes a day Chris.

On meditation

I can get positive results with just 15 to 20 minutes a day sitting meditation time. It helps if I sit at regular time. I meditate on nothingness, although some meditate on an object. Nothingness helps quiet my "sticky brain" that seems to hold onto everything. If you can get to a half hour meditation time, that is great. It just takes time and practice. Morning works better for me than mid day...there are less things distracting me earlier in the day usually.

When I see a bright third eye forming in black space and my mind is empty, I am there. I try to hold onto this place, but thoughts come and go and to hold on forcibly makes it very elusive. Sometimes this light starts out as a small spot and becomes brighter. A few time I have seen vivid pictures like movies that made it seemed like my eyes where open. The important point is to just do it and do it regularly and do not make demands on your meditation practice or have expectations. Balance is very important in life. We need some spiritual practice and some physical as well. We sometimes forget we are spiritual beings residing in physical bodies living in physical world and need effort in both areas.

There are many other ways to use meditation besides traditional sitting meditation. There is also working mediation and walking mediation practices. If you do yoga, you can try combining meditation with your Yoga practice. Mindfulness meditation all starts with being aware of ones breath as someone mentioned earlier. Some practitioners do compassion meditation throughout all their waking hours if they are hard core.

"In every single gesture when getting up one thinks - may I get up to deliver all sentient beings from suffering, when tying ones belt one thinks - may I cultivate the belt of mindfulness, when coming down the steps - may I descend to help take suffering from beings, when opening a door - may the door of liberation be open for all sentient beings, when closing the door - may the door of suffering be closed for all sentient beings. In this way, every instance of thought is filled with compassion."

Myself? I have done many years of working meditation and some walking practice, but the compassion meditation is too much for me except in very short bursts. Balance is the key for me. We should not look at meditation as a magic bullet that will give us the power shoot lightning bolts from our finger tips. As the old Buddhist saying reminds us: Before enlightenment you chop wood and carry water ~ after enlightenment you chop wood and carry water.

I also make use of meditation tools such as a meditation timer. One type is a $10 CD that sounds a gong after a preset time. The other one is an expensive $100 electric gong timer that can also be used as an alarm clock or Yoga timer. Sometimes I might use the 15 minute preset time just to get into a state conducive to meditation and when the gong goes off keep sitting until I feel like getting up naturally. These are usually the best sessions for me, although they require a person to have some freedom of time. Seldom can I sit for longer than 30 to 35 minutes at a session due to time and my ability.

Any sort of timer is fine except one that jars you out of meditation in an abusive and agitating manner. A timer frees one's mind from worrying about such things. This should also apply to our alarm clocks in the morning. I use a CD clock that plays birds singing. Start your day off in peace. If you need further advice, there are many good books, videos or tapes on meditating from your local library that can help. Also many internet resources.

Good Luck,


V

[Ierrellus]

I'm a male with a strong anima. It's great to have opinions from both sides of the equation.:)

[vfr]

I'm a male with a strong anima. It's great to have opinions from both sides of the equation.:)

Strong anima?

What does this mean and how do you use or not use it to your benefit?

V

[vfr]

Earl.

Update your BIO or post something about yourself here. I'd like to know more about you if you don't mind. You write interesting posts.

Age? Married? Background? Interests? etc.

Same with many of you, again it is nice seeing the background that supports certain philosophical views. Sometime the bsckgound supports it and sometimes it does not, but in either case I like to know about my author's I read.



V (Male) For free access to my earlier posts on voluntary simplicity, compulsive spending, debting, compulsive overeating and clutter write: vfr44@aol.com. Any opinion expressed here is that of my own and is not the opinion or belief of any group or organization.

[Ierrellus]

vfr,
In Jungian psychology the anima is the female constitution within the male. Nobody is 100% male or female. we all have something within us of what we refer to as the opposite sex.

[credoconsolans]

Know ones gender?

"Nice for what? I would reckon that the discussion of philosophical ideas is hindered by autobiographical material."

And..."For the OP, we women are here. What would be the point of putting our gender on our IDs? We're here to discuss and to exchange ideas. Who cares from what sex the discussion comes?"

see my discussion of this topic from these earlier posts.

http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showpost.php?p=3724483&postcount=30


http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showpost.php?p=3722781&postcount=14
V

Thanks for the links, yes I read them, but I disagreed. If you have a thread and you want posts from women, simply state that you want responses from women and those who want to will respond.

Some people don't want their responses statistically analyzed or presumption made of their opinions "Well, you're a wo/man you would think that" Some feel they have a right to post their opinions without someone taking into account their gender and possibly making unconscious stereotypical judgments.

People do it all the time. People relate to one another based on how much they know of one another. So to some, the less other people know about them, the less presumption can be made by others and some people like that.

[jaboteer]

I remember when Chris Porter did that name change - hope it wasn't a sex change:D :D . I always try to guess who is writing, male or female, mature or immature, then I try attaching a real name. Guess what: I play russian roulette with sex and names.

In the beginning I thought she (Farouche Exegete) was a female (name too concealed), but in the beginning I always think everyone is female :love: Pictures will reveal all and Schrodinger would be very very happy.

Problem might be available educated men persuing their own interests...

I find novice internet writers broadcast their memes very well.

[credoconsolans]

Do you see evolution playing a role at all in the way things are?

Absolutely. Obviously due to the sexual dimorphism of the human species, it behooved our ancestors to have the larger members of the tribe/pack/family group try to protect the more vulnerable members of the group from predators. In our case, males grew larger than females and thus were better equipped to fight and run from predators, but as a group, it didn't do them much good to save themselves if the pregnant females and children of the group lagged behind and got eaten.

So the male propensity to feel protective of the less vulnerable I believe is evolutionarily based. Women have the same urge, but since they don't feel men are as vulnerable, their urge to protect runs toward those more vulnerable than themselves - the children.

As for an individual woman's need to have a male protector, I'm not sure where that came from. Some primate groups were primarily female kin groups needing only A single male protector (men saw this as THEIR 'harem' while the women saw the same group as a FEMALE group with a transitory male). Not sure where this female primate kin group who could care and feed one another fell apart for human females. And later, after humans developed fire, women probably didn't need men for protection from predators much, but it seems what women needed a man to protect them from was another man.

We don't know if women developed the strategy for drawing a single male protector in for her and her family because of violence from other males or because of simple mooching and stealing from other men. So I really can't say.

[jaboteer]

vfr,
In Jungian psychology the anima is the female constitution within the male. Nobody is 100% male or female. we all have something within us of what we refer to as the opposite sex.If you are a man, on the street it is called your female side. If you are a woman it is called how much of the pants are you wearnig.

[Earl]

VFR: Earl. Update your BIO or post something about yourself here. I'd like to know more about you if you don't mind. You write interesting posts. Age? Married? Background? Interests? etc.

EARL: Thanks, but I agree with credoconsolans that giving away too much personal information changes the experience of participating in an intellectual forum--and not necessarily for the better. I’ve already said in a recent thread that I’m a fourth year philosophy PhD student. You can find out more about my views by searching the old Secular Web discussion board where I used to debate Christians several years ago. (For some reason the number of my six hundred posts doesn’t now show up when I post something.) Among my interests is analytic philosophy, which takes seriously the distinction between a statement’s epistemic status and its psychological origin in the person who makes the statement. This is why I’d rather not focus on the personal details of people who participate in this forum. I’m more interested in the arguments than in the people.

[credoconsolans]

Credoconsolans,

You’ve beat up on a strawperson version of the point about the egg and the sperm. Recall that what I said is that “the different circumstances faced by men and women can be *compared* to those faced by the egg and by the sperm.” I didn’t say that the egg = woman and that the sperm = man. We’re talking about a metaphor and about the relation of similarity, not the relation of identity. Wherever there’s mere similarity there’s difference as well. Perhaps this particular metaphor is more trouble than it’s worth. Just to get some facts straight, though, the sperm don’t have exactly the same genetic material. Some have X-chromosomes and some have Y-chromosomes, which determines the sex of the fetus. Also, some sperm are defective swimmers; for example, they may have only stumps for tails.

OK, it was a metaphor. However poetic, it's a bad one and not really based in reality. As for sperm, there are exceptions to everything. Yes, some are defective. That still doesn't mean they 'compete'.

What I wanted to say is that the evolutionary reason for the double standard is that men are objectively easier to tempt

Tempt is a strange word. Women are also easily tempted, it's just that it got more difficult as time went on for women to stray, because once cultures developed where paternity and inheritance issues became important, men got all snippy about working to raise someone else's children. Or at least in some cultures they did.

These cultural reasons are mostly bogus.

In any case, for a few hundred thousand years our ancestors lived in caves and presumably lacked even primitive methods of birth control.

We don't know that they did or didn't. They might have. Obviously they would know quite a bit about local plants.

During that time, promiscuous women who became pregnant would have had to secure protection from someone or other--usually the mate who himself couldn’t become similarly vulnerable. Of course, at that time there was no means of proving the identity of a child’s father. But assume that a woman cuckolded her mate

OK, here's a presumption that earlier pre-historic male/female relationships were monogamous - on at least one of the partner's part. They might have been, or they might have been similar to 'open marriages' or something altogether different.

that her promiscuity was discovered. The mate might get jealous and choose not to protect her (or even to kill her and the rival).

Or they might have been happy to have increased the tribe overall. It depends on whether our pre-historic ancestors thought more of themselves as individuals or thought more of the group's survival.

Although you’re right that in prehistoric times women might have been encouraged to have children--there were more than enough resources to go around--those times were also more brutal

Obviously medical care wasn't great - but of course, the child mortality rate even in the 1700's was still nearly 90% in some areas, so it could go either way. People might have been encouraged to reproduce no matter what, seeing as the population growth was probably at 0 or women might have wanted to control their pregnancies since chances were very good it was almost a death sentence to give birth.

There's no way to tell where circumstances might have led them. Obviously, according to some stat I read, in areas of good resources, our ancestors had to work less than 20 hours per week to gather enough food and resources to support themselves and had the rest as leisure time. Hardly a 'brutal' existence. I remember reading that the 18th century or so Brits were jealous of the native islanders of Polynesia because they lived in such a paradise where 'bread' literally grew on trees, the weather mild and they were pretty indolent most of the time.

and thus women had even more to lose for their promiscuity, largely because of the biologically imposed penalty (late trimester of pregnancy and having to feed and care for the infant). Women had more to lose from the consequences of promiscuity

Again, we have to make a lot of assumptions for this to be true. We have to assume the woman was only sleeping with one man, we have to assume that both men and women knew EXACTLY whose child was whose, we have to assume that the group the woman belonged to wouldn't have thought a pregnant woman the be-all end-all of existence and given her high status for actually getting pregnant in the first place as opposed to thinking badly of her because she didn't get pregnant by the 'right' man.

Regardless, the point is that in evolutionary terms women are harder to please than men. After all, pleasing women amounts to pleasing the children who are potentially created in the women.

Historically speaking, children have been left in the gutters because parents or mothers could not care for them. In the written past, children were mostly abandoned during bad times because the man/woman could always have more children if they saved themselves rather than sacrifice themselves to save a child who was incapable of caring for itself.

I do agree in some circumstances that males go out of their way to show off around women to prove their prowess and health to get mates, but those same males wandered off the next mating season. For humans, a male showing off to 'please women' would also be as temporary since his drive was to spread his seed around. He would be more focused on intimidating the other males and running them off so he could have sole access to the females.

You say “If women were the majority in the business world, it is probably likely that for a woman to take time off to have a child would not be an impediment to her financial success.” But the point is that women have been prevented from being in the majority in the business world, because of women’s additional reproductive functions and related private tasks.

Um, do we know the stats of how many women are actually in the workforce?

Some women choose to focus on their careers, but this tends to happen at the cost of their giving birth to children.

Some do, some don't. Everyone knows the ex-president of the U.S.'s wife was both a high powered lawyer, first lady and now a senator and she still managed to raise a child. I also know women who have worked all their lives AND had children and have no 'career' to speak of, but have worked clerical or other type jobs their whole lives giving care of their children to family members (some of whom made a business of caring for children) or to professional daycare. Of all the women I do know - and this is in an urban environment - next to none are stay at home moms.

Only by controlling or circumventing the reproductive functions can women hope to eliminate the double standard and women’s dependence on guardians.

And again, this has been going on for millennia, documented to at least ancient historical times that women have used birth control and abortion to control their reproduction and probably far beyond written history as well, but the double standard remains.

[Blu]

Women think as much as men as a whole about philosophy, the meaning of life, religion, etc. Some can venture to say that women might have more of a capacity as a whole to think in meaningful ways because of their ability to hold and nurture life within their wombs. Experience really is the aspect that can either make a person a philosophy oriented person, a deep thought oriented person or a shallow individual, depressed and sitting on the couch with nothing more to think about besides when they will get the motivation to get up and go to the fridge for another beer. I wouldn't call the originator of this thread a sexist but I would say that the originator of this thread needs to have more experiences with women and with interacting with the human race beyond the internet. Those experiences are important because what beliefs and ideas develop from "real world" experiences tend to be more accurate.

[Coooolo70]

Vfr,

You say you “do not feel the need to apologize for the difference between a male and female - that is what makes them unique and is part of natural law. Either something is true or not, that is the bottom line. Men and women will never be equal, nor should they be. Men are not better than women and women are not better than men - they are just different as well as the same.”

The appeal to natural law doesn’t do much work, since evidently one ability which is at least indirectly the product of natural selection is our ability to take control of our own evolution by means of technological mastery of nature. In using social organization and technology, we follow our own artificial intentions and prescriptions which are subsets of natural law. For example, women can now control their reproductive process with birth control pills, cesarean section, in vitro fertilization, and so on. Soon will come cloning and the artificial selection of genes. Like I said, even the biological differences can be erased with technology.

When you say that men and women should not be equal, you have to be careful. Shouldn’t women and men have equal basic opportunities? You’re appealing, in effect, to such clichés as “variety is the spice of life” and “vive la difference,” and these are fine as far as they go. But there is no guarantee that all natural differences ought to be celebrated. On the contrary, for the last several thousand years we’ve been busy improving on nature and on our own genetically favourable behaviour, having recognized that nature is far from perfect. The biological differences between the sexes have been partly responsible for the miserable circumstances of many women, the expectation having arisen that since nature or God designed women to give birth and to feed children, women should focus on those responsibilities and shouldn’t worry about being educated or about acquiring the means to take care of themselves or to run society.

Sexism, which might minimally be taken to be the focus on differences between the sexes, becomes a problem when men concoct myths to rationalize a self-serving social hierarchy which oppresses women. We seem to have the freedom to thumb our noses at Mother Nature and at her micro technology (the genes, proteins, and so forth). We get to decide how to govern our lives and what our species will become, and that decision is based as much on social and on ethical prescriptions as on physical, immutable laws. Thus we have to ask how different ought men and women to be.

at the moment it's the men in society that are oppressed.

[sweetiepie]

Why the feminine name, then?

I think it's funny.

(although I will admit their are advantages to playing either gender.)

[sweetiepie]

V:

No good to come of it?

I disagree.

I like to know the views of women and as such need to know the gender of the poster. We can see this very clearly in this discussion at hand. The women discuss whether or not they will divulge their gender and the men seem to be on another area of more in depth discussion.
Firstly, within the discussion at hand, you are creating a gender divide by adressing them seperately. By starting this discussion "where are the women?", you are creating a response for women that will be different from men. In adressing a particular group, you can expect people within that group to respond differently than people outside of it. Similarly, if I created a thread "why are all the dudes here sexist assholes", you can bet I would get gendered responses.


So gender is very, very important to see the entire spectrum of thought.
Supposing that there is some sort of variance of thought created by having both female and male opinions, and that this variance is somehow beneficial toward finding truth (both of which are fishy assumptions) you still don't need to actually know people's genders. Knowing that someone is a male doesn't make them have more manly thoughts.
Nor does knowing whether or not both genders are being represented make them any more or less represented.
This knowledge does twothings: it informs you how men and women tend to think, and allows you judge their thoughts based on their gender. That is, it allows for sexism. Nothing else.

We could also write down are race, class, religion, nationality, standard of living, career, how old you are, whether or not we smoke, how much we weigh, whether or not you like chocolate, who you think would win in a fight: Spider man or Mike Tyson, what's your favorite color, and how many times we each masturbate every week. We could then form correlations between each, and ask people their thoughts from each permutation of group, undervaluing those who aren't of our group, until we know 'everything'

Yesterday I discussed some of Earls comments with my wife to hear her views and low and behold she offered some insight from her point of view. Although her gender is obvious, I still needed to 'know her gender' to seek this out.
Most Humans will have different views than Earl's. You seem to be suggesting there is a male opinion and a female opinion and that's it. This is what asking people's genders results in. A worldview in which you need only check to see if people have breasts before qualifiying their thoughts. You don't need to know her gender to find out whether or not she might have insight, you can just talk to her and form an opinion of her capabilities based on her responses. Instead you seem to think that it's enough to ask one boy and one girl to develop a census of opinions.

We are all anonymous for the most part. A rapist will not track you down as long as you are anonymous.

Harassing mail?

Send it back to the source and ask them to stop in public. I get plenty of harassing personal mail, from women. (although not of a sexual nature of harassment from the women) I always send it back to the source (list / forum) to discuss it in public.

I will agree with you that it may cause more hassles for women in general though.

Hiding behavior is a signpost of dis-ease. And no matter how we justify hiding, it still undermines our peace. Each women would have to weigh the pros and cons of this for herself.
If you think rape and email harrasments are only negative resultants from a genderized world, you need to actually think about the way you treat men and women differently. If you spent some more time actually sympathizing with women, rather than just cataloguing their opinions, you'd probably be a lot less surprised by the way they think.

The central problem for gender in this forum is that many people treat arguments from men and women unequally. This problem is alleviated when you can't immediately suppose, upon reading my name, that my post is going to be shallow. I think it's better when you to judge my gender by what I say than when judge what I say by my gender. That is, I would rather participate in an exchange of unbiased ideas than a rhetoric of biographies.

I fail to see what you're complaining about anyway, you are free to declare your penis size at the beginning of every post.

[fast]

This thread should have been a poll.

[Earl]

Credoconsolans,

I’d like to refocus the discussion. I think the broad question is to what extent are the sexes unequal, given that some sort of inequality might be responsible for women’s relative lack of impact on Western philosophy and their lack of interest in the internet. I’ve argued that many of the social inequalities are due ultimately to men and women’s different reproductive functions. The social asymmetry originates in the biological difference, even while this difference can, in principle, be transcended (by technology, and so forth).

Some of your responses suggest that you don’t give much credit to evolutionary psychology. This might have led Breath to say, “You make it sound as though men not only control women, they have control over themselves as well. Do you see evolution playing a role at all in the way things are?” You responded that you do think evolution plays a role in this context. And yet in your most recent response to me, you say things like the following:

“Tempt is a strange word. Women are also easily tempted, it's just that it got more difficult as time went on for women to stray, because once cultures developed where paternity and inheritance issues became important, men *got all snippy about working to raise someone else's children.* Or at least in some cultures they did….

“Or they might have been happy to have increased the tribe overall. It depends on whether our pre-historic ancestors *thought* more of themselves as individuals or *thought* more of the group's survival” (my emphases).

As I understand it, evolutionary psychology explains certain features of society from a gene’s-eye perspective, since what are naturally selected fundamentally are the genes. There is a debate about whether the unit of natural selection is the gene, the individual or the species, but minimally genes are subject to natural selection. The idea, then, is that at least some human behaviour is genetically determined and subject to an evolutionary explanation. When you say that men only relatively recently “got all snippy” about raising other men’s children, I’d say that kin selection has always been at work. This is why males of many different species get jealous of other males and protective of their mates. The point, roughly, is that the genes use the male as a host to ensure that familiar rather than foreign genes get transmitted to future generations. And when you say that the question is whether our ancestors “thought” of themselves as individuals or as a group, I’d say the question rather is whether their some of behaviour was caused by environmental pressure on the transmission of genes regardless of what the ancestors were thinking.

So I’m not sure you accept evolutionary psychology in general. If not, that’s fine by me, because I think evolutionary psychologists can take evolutionary explanations too far, as though all human behaviour were genetically determined. However, when it comes to basic sexual inequality, I do think the different reproductive functions are key.

I said that “in evolutionary terms women are harder to please than men. After all, pleasing women amounts to pleasing the children who are potentially created in the women.” You responded by saying that in many cases children are left in the gutters rather than cared for at all. This may be true, but surely a parent’s concern for his or her children’s welfare is genetically determined. If any behaviour is subject to an evolutionary explanation, surely behaviour which results immediately in the safeguarding of a genetic lineage is so subject. In extreme cases, children are sacrificed, especially when the parents bet that in the future they’ll have a better chance to have children which they can care for. But overall, human parents (especially women) are strongly inclined to care for their children.

Now, when I said that in pleasing women men have to please the potential children, what I meant is that since women are the primary care-givers to children--women form a stronger emotional bond with infants because of their experiences of carrying the infant for nine months and of giving birth to it, and women alone feed infants (except in sophisticated societies that provide artificial baby food)--women want men to please not just women but what women care a lot about, which is children. To do this, men have to secure the resources to keep women safe while women are occupied with caring for the children. Men have to protect women when they’re vulnerable, such as when they’re pregnant. Granted, men too want children, but because men aren’t so directly involved in caring for children, men have more opportunities to spread their genes. To satisfy a man, a woman simply has to be physically attractive enough to tempt the man, whereas to satisfy a woman a man has to do all kinds of work in the public sphere: a man has to take up the slack when the woman has her hands full caring for the children.

Much of this has no bearing on sophisticated societies in which there are social programs, more equal economic opportunities, and technological control over the reproductive functions. Even in primitive societies, pregnant mothers could count on support from the extended family. But the basic reproductive differences are still important enough to account for women’s relative lack of interest in the internet, for example. Again, men are easier to please and to tempt. For example, men care more about pornography than do women, because men want women just to have the appearance of beauty, whereas women also want men to provide financial security and a long-term relationship for the sake of their children with whom the women will have a stronger bond. The internet is largely a provider of pornography; therefore, men flock to the internet. The flashing images on the computer screen substitute for real women who demand more from men.

[credoconsolans]

Credoconsolans,

I’d like to refocus the discussion. I think the broad question is to what extent are the sexes unequal, given that some sort of inequality might be responsible for women’s relative lack of impact on Western philosophy and their lack of interest in the internet. I’ve argued that many of the social inequalities are due ultimately to men and women’s different reproductive functions. The social asymmetry originates in the biological difference, even while this difference can, in principle, be transcended (by technology, and so forth).

I think it will be rather hard to respond to such a broad question. There are many many many reasons for unequal representation in various activities for men and women. The internet is a world impacting form of communication/information. Unlike yourself, I find every single woman I know uses the internet often. A male friend of mine continually encourages me to IM him, but I always refuse, liking the freedom of e-mailing. Why? Because I can send an e-mail, then get up and walk away to do other things, leaving the conversation in progress, but without immediate resolution. Why would I want to IM someone? If I want live communication, I could just pick up the phone and call him. [shrugs]. On the other hand, my best friend constantly IMs her daughter at college.

As someone else pointed out, you don't find many women here on the Philosophy forum, but I hardly find any men on the Romance Novel board wherein the women talk about everything from politics to child-rearing and life philosophy of the characters and themselves. They don't have to go to another board to discuss life philosophies when they can do it on the boards they are already on.

Some of your responses suggest that you don’t give much credit to evolutionary psychology. This might have led Breath to say, “You make it sound as though men not only control women, they have control over themselves as well. Do you see evolution playing a role at all in the way things are?” You responded that you do think evolution plays a role in this context.

I do credit evolutionary psychology for somethings, but not to the extent that other people do. Interpretation is everything and very hard to prove. The examples I gave you are just some of them. We assume a great deal about our ancient ancestors by what we here are doing now in the great societies of the West.

That is hardly an equitable comparison. Outside influences have effected our modern cultures to such an extent that I find it hard to credit evolution to the ideas you present. For example:

When you say that men only relatively recently “got all snippy” about raising other men’s children, I’d say that kin selection has always been at work. This is why males of many different species get jealous of other males and protective of their mates.

This idea depends on when males

1) figured out that they played a part in reproduction
2) changed their attitude about women from active members of an egalitarian hunter-gatherer society to possessions to be owned and collected by men.

This may have been rather recent, historically speaking. But without evidence, my ideas about the development of kin selection are just as likely to have occurred as yours.

The point, roughly, is that the genes use the male as a host to ensure that familiar rather than foreign genes get transmitted to future generations. And when you say that the question is whether our ancestors “thought” of themselves as individuals or as a group, I’d say the question rather is whether their some of behaviour was caused by environmental pressure on the transmission of genes regardless of what the ancestors were thinking.

And I would disagree, since this idea puts the man in the dominant aggressive position and women - again - as the passive receptacle. Giving men the drive to have sex, regardless of the consequences with women as helpless victims in the face of this drive, instead of thinking individuals who knew all too well the consequences of pregnancy and could have controlled men's access to them and/or the consequences of sex altogether. After all, there are other ways of getting sexual pleasure, cementing emotional bonds, than by penis/vaginal sex.

I said that “in evolutionary terms women are harder to please than men. After all, pleasing women amounts to pleasing the children who are potentially created in the women.” You responded by saying that in many cases children are left in the gutters rather than cared for at all. This may be true,

It is true. We see that even today.

but surely a parent’s concern for his or her children’s welfare is genetically determined.

Of course. But the question is, from what does it stem? You say this drive is especially strong in women because they have the babies. I say that it is likely a combination of factors. Because of the same protective drive humans have for more vulnerable humans (protecting the weaker, sick and helpless) and because the child is the receptacle of future gene success.

Now, when I said that in pleasing women men have to please the potential children, what I meant is that since women are the primary care-givers to children--women form a stronger emotional bond with infants because of their experiences of carrying the infant for nine months and of giving birth to it, and women alone feed infants (except in sophisticated societies that provide artificial baby food)

I have some doubts about this too. This POV completely overlooks the fact that men/women also bond strongly with adoptive children and babies are pretty much all about their own survival and will bond just as strongly with adoptive parent figures as their own mothers since it was easy to lose the mother at the birthing (When I was living with my sister during college and she was working full time and going to school full time and I had the care of her 15 month old child for most of the day, by the end of the first few months, the child was calling me 'mother'). IMO the 'birth parent bond' is overblown and has been very romanticized. Our ancestors needed quite a bit of flexibility in their members - women who wouldn't waste away in grief because of the loss of a child and children who wouldn't die because their 'real' mother wasn't around to care for them.

women want men to please not just women but what women care a lot about, which is children. To do this, men have to secure the resources to keep women safe while women are occupied with caring for the children.

Again, this is very stereotyped POV. Here you state women want men to please them by caring about what THEY care about - children, but earlier you stated that men only care about their OWN children.

And again, we don't how our ancestors lived. Within a family group, men were expendable because with the discovery of controlled fire and family resources, men didn't have much importance. Women were perfectly capable of fending off wild animals and gathering food. It was just easier with help. It's very possible they did control their reproduction. Women probably weren't in such dire straits as needing a Sir Galahad to ride to their rescue. Saving the family group was in the men's best interest as well. After all, an attack on the family group would also probably scatter and destroy food and supplies that they needed as well.

To satisfy a man, a woman simply has to be physically attractive enough to tempt the man, whereas to satisfy a woman a man has to do all kinds of work in the public sphere: a man has to take up the slack when the woman has her hands full caring for the children.

Again a very stereotypical POV and not proven by social structures today as I pointed out in my earlier posts. In some countries, men do as you say and take care of all public tasks as well as taking to the fields while women run the households. BUT, in other countries, women take their children to the fields with them to work while the men loll around the village, waiting for the opportunity to show off their manhood in some daring escapade. And everyone knows the native American stories of women going out to the woods to give birth and bringing back a load of wood on their way back with the baby.

Obviously, evolution did not provide for men 'taking up the slack' when it's quite obvious there wasn't much slack to be taken up that women could not already do.

But the basic reproductive differences are still important enough to account for women’s relative lack of interest in the internet, for example.

Not quite sure how you come to that conclusion. I suggest you surf a great deal more, on topics you have no interest in and see if you don't find women there in numbers.

Again, men are easier to please and to tempt. For example, men care more about pornography than do women

Guess you would have to define 'porn'. I spend a great deal of time on a board of slash fan fiction and the writers on this massive site and fans who take interest in this type of stories are predominantly women.

because men want women just to have the appearance of beauty

And again, this statement completely negates your earlier 'men are easier to please'. Beauty does not last. Age inevitably destroys physical beauty and men move on. Hence the ridiculous 'youth culture' in the U.S. Men - who so far run the media - focus on what sells - sex, and thus have to keep changing beauty/sexual icons to satisfy their consumer base.

[jaboteer]

Beauty does not last. Age inevitably destroys physical beauty and men move on. Hence the ridiculous 'youth culture' in the U.S. Men - who so far run the media - focus on what sells - sex, and thus have to keep changing beauty/sexual icons to satisfy their consumer base.Is this beauty or familarity? According to: Plotinus Ideal forms of beauty are eternal.

[credoconsolans]

Is this beauty or familarity? According to: Plotinus Ideal forms of beauty are eternal.

I don't know. It was Earl who said women only have to be 'beautiful'.

You have what's-his-name in the pajamas with his blonde bimbos du jour around him and you have men like Bruce Springsteen who did the typical rock star-marrying-a-super-model schtick, just to divorce her and marry a plainer woman from his own background.

Men can be more complicated than Earl gives them credit for. As for Plotinus, beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

[vfr]

Firstly, within the discussion at hand, you are creating a gender divide by adressing them seperately. By starting this discussion "where are the women?", you are creating a response for women that will be different from men. In adressing a particular group, you can expect people within that group to respond differently than people outside of it. Similarly, if I created a thread "why are all the dudes here sexist assholes", you can bet I would get gendered responses.



Supposing that there is some sort of variance of thought created by having both female and male opinions, and that this variance is somehow beneficial toward finding truth (both of which are fishy assumptions) you still don't need to actually know people's genders. Knowing that someone is a male doesn't make them have more manly thoughts.
Nor does knowing whether or not both genders are being represented make them any more or less represented.
This knowledge does twothings: it informs you how men and women tend to think, and allows you judge their thoughts based on their gender. That is, it allows for sexism. Nothing else.

We could also write down are race, class, religion, nationality, standard of living, career, how old you are, whether or not we smoke, how much we weigh, whether or not you like chocolate, who you think would win in a fight: Spider man or Mike Tyson, what's your favorite color, and how many times we each masturbate every week. We could then form correlations between each, and ask people their thoughts from each permutation of group, undervaluing those who aren't of our group, until we know 'everything'


Most Humans will have different views than Earl's. You seem to be suggesting there is a male opinion and a female opinion and that's it. This is what asking people's genders results in. A worldview in which you need only check to see if people have breasts before qualifiying their thoughts. You don't need to know her gender to find out whether or not she might have insight, you can just talk to her and form an opinion of her capabilities based on her responses. Instead you seem to think that it's enough to ask one boy and one girl to develop a census of opinions.


If you think rape and email harrasments are only negative resultants from a genderized world, you need to actually think about the way you treat men and women differently. If you spent some more time actually sympathizing with women, rather than just cataloguing their opinions, you'd probably be a lot less surprised by the way they think.

The central problem for gender in this forum is that many people treat arguments from men and women unequally. This problem is alleviated when you can't immediately suppose, upon reading my name, that my post is going to be shallow. I think it's better when you to judge my gender by what I say than when judge what I say by my gender. That is, I would rather participate in an exchange of unbiased ideas than a rhetoric of biographies.

I fail to see what you're complaining about anyway, you are free to declare your penis size at the beginning of every post.


If you spent some more time actually sympathizing with women, rather than just cataloguing their opinions, you'd probably be a lot less surprised by the way they think.


Surprised by the way they (females) think? I guess I will never know as you have made your case as to why it is better to hide your gender than be upfront about it. I find it interesting you talk of 'sexism' in one breath and 'sympathizing' with the next breath? You fail to see that I would not had to ask the question in the OP if women philosophers were upfront about gender at this forum. I could at least see for myself the ratio of participants.

rape and email harrasments are only negative resultants from a genderized world, you need to actually think about the way you treat men and women differently.

I don't come into contact with many women other than my wife, so I do not knowingly have much effect on women when it comes to gender discrimination. I will say I try to treat them equally if possible sweetiepie. For instance, when I had a position to hire some workers I would not hire a female ditch digger as first preference, but I have in the past if the female was a good worker irrespective of gender.

I fail to see what you're complaining about anyway, you are free to declare your penis size at the beginning of every post.

Yes, any time a discussion of gender comes up passions fly. The ancient Greek philosophers knew that when passion rules the mind, that the only job left for reason is that of the subservient task to find cleaver ways to satisfy the passions. They called it "putting passion before reason." Both sexes are guilty of this it seems.

Some of what you write is true and you have brought up some good points. But, may I ask why you brought my 'penis size' into this discussion sweetiepie? Did I make such a remark to you about your 'female private parts' that offended you? I tried to stay focused on the principles and not the personalties or even the body parts of the personalities. It seems that such a remark smacks more of sexism than by my asking where are all the women philosophers?



In any case, t thank you for your reply sweetiepie.


Good luck



V (Male) For free access to my earlier posts on voluntary simplicity, compulsive spending, debting, compulsive overeating and clutter write: vfr44@aol.com. Any opinion expressed here is that of my own and is not the opinion or belief of any group or organization.

[dug_down_deep]

Is this a haven for social outcasts?

I had no idea.

I feel dirty having been in their company without knowing.

Uchhh!!!
In case you doubt it, stray over to the Pedophilia Poll. You may never feel quite the same about philosophical discussions again.

[vfr]

vfr,
In Jungian psychology the anima is the female constitution within the male. Nobody is 100% male or female. we all have something within us of what we refer to as the opposite sex.

Yes, in general I agree we all have a mix.

Does having a strong anima make one gay or does it have anything to do with that?

V

[vfr]

Thanks for the links, yes I read them, but I disagreed. If you have a thread and you want posts from women, simply state that you want responses from women and those who want to will respond.

Some people don't want their responses statistically analyzed or presumption made of their opinions "Well, you're a wo/man you would think that" Some feel they have a right to post their opinions without someone taking into account their gender and possibly making unconscious stereotypical judgments.

People do it all the time. People relate to one another based on how much they know of one another. So to some, the less other people know about them, the less presumption can be made by others and some people like that.


some people like that

Sure, we each have likes and dislikes.

V

[vfr]

Women think as much as men as a whole about philosophy, the meaning of life, religion, etc. Some can venture to say that women might have more of a capacity as a whole to think in meaningful ways because of their ability to hold and nurture life within their wombs. Experience really is the aspect that can either make a person a philosophy oriented person, a deep thought oriented person or a shallow individual, depressed and sitting on the couch with nothing more to think about besides when they will get the motivation to get up and go to the fridge for another beer. I wouldn't call the originator of this thread a sexist but I would say that the originator of this thread needs to have more experiences with women and with interacting with the human race beyond the internet. Those experiences are important because what beliefs and ideas develop from "real world" experiences tend to be more accurate.



Thank you for your reply,

V

[Karen M]

You fail to see that I would not even had to ask the question in the OP if women philosophers were upfront about gender at this forum.

I think a more interesting question would be "Why did you assume all of the gender-neutral names were males?"


I also noticed this from a previous post of yours:

On other lists, I got tired of people addressing 'V' as she, so I started listing 'male' at the end of my posts

If gender doesn't even affect opinions enough for people to be able to tell the difference between female posters and male posters, why would knowing people's gender matter to the discussion?

[vfr]

VFR: Earl. Update your BIO or post something about yourself here. I'd like to know more about you if you don't mind. You write interesting posts. Age? Married? Background? Interests? etc.

EARL: Thanks, but I agree with credoconsolans that giving away too much personal information changes the experience of participating in an intellectual forum--and not necessarily for the better. I’ve already said in a recent thread that I’m a fourth year philosophy PhD student. You can find out more about my views by searching the old Secular Web discussion board where I used to debate Christians several years ago. (For some reason the number of my six hundred posts doesn’t now show up when I post something.) Among my interests is analytic philosophy, which takes seriously the distinction between a statement’s epistemic status and its psychological origin in the person who makes the statement. This is why I’d rather not focus on the personal details of people who participate in this forum. I’m more interested in the arguments than in the people.


Isn't at something. My wife and i both thought you were an old guy...preconceived notions! Are you male or female Earl? And whre is the old forum?

V

[vfr]

I think a more interesting question would be "Why did you assume all of the gender-neutral names were males?"


I also noticed this from a previous post of yours:



If gender doesn't even affect opinions enough for people to be able to tell the difference between female posters and male posters, why would knowing people's gender matter to the discussion?



People do make assumptions. It is how the visual mind works when blinded. Men think I'm male for the most part and many women thought 'V' was female.

Yes, certain truth transcend gender and but sometimes certain discussion do not.

V

[sweetiepie]

Surprised by the way they (females) think? I guess I will never know as you have made your case as to why it is better to hide your gender than be upfront about it. I find it interesting you talk of 'sexism' in one breath and 'sympathizing' with the next breath? You fail to see that I would not had to ask the question in the OP if women philosophers were upfront about gender at this forum. I could at least see for myself the ratio of participants.

I mention sympathy because people tend to think that the opposite gender has a completely alien thinking process. That one can't think like the opposite gender at all, but instead must simply memorize the conclusions they tend to come up with when confronted with questions. This belief allows for sexism. If you try to think like your wife, rather than just write down her conclusions according to her gender, you're less liable to be shocked when she leaves you.
Also, asking who here is a woman equivalently allows for sexism. In a genderless forum there is no room to judge peoples ideas by chromosomes.

Yes, any time a discussion of gender comes up passions fly. The ancient Greek philosophers knew that when passion rules the mind, that the only job left for reason is that of the subservient task to find cleaver ways to satisfy the passions. They called it "putting passion before reason." Both sexes are guilty of this it seems.
(imho) humor is the mark of any good argument. What it comes down to is that we fear being judged by our bodyparts. That asking what bodyparts we have does absolutely nothing but allows you to judge us by them.

They are an arbitrary fact of our existence, no different than eye-color by which we are constantly identified and treated differently. The very notion that we might have different thoughts is a result of this identification.

But, may I ask why you brought my 'penis size' into this discussion sweetiepie? Did I make such a remark to you about your 'female private parts' that offended you? I tried to stay focused on the principles and not the personalties or even the body parts of the personalities. It seems that such a remark smacks more of sexism than by my asking where are all the women philosophers?
Your noting of my female parts was infact such a remark. I am more than my breasts, you are more than your penis size. Your question, where are all the women, is equivalent to: where are all the vaginas?

The particular point of this statement is that there doesn't have to be special place for gender. You can write your gender in each post, like you did at the beginning of this thread. If you think that sounds ridiculous, then that's why I think having a special place for biographies in a philisophical forum sounds ridiculous.

[sweetiepie]

Surprised by the way they (females) think? I guess I will never know as you have made your case as to why it is better to hide your gender than be upfront about it. I find it interesting you talk of 'sexism' in one breath and 'sympathizing' with the next breath? You fail to see that I would not had to ask the question in the OP if women philosophers were upfront about gender at this forum. I could at least see for myself the ratio of participants.

I mention sympathy because people tend to think that the opposite gender has a completely alien thinking process. That one can't think like the opposite gender at all, but instead must simply memorize the conclusions they tend to come up with when confronted with questions. This belief allows for sexism. If you try to think like your wife, rather than just write down her conclusions according to her gender, you're less liable to be shocked when she leaves you.
Also, asking who here is a woman equivalently allows for sexism. In a genderless forum there is no room to judge peoples ideas by chromosomes.

Yes, any time a discussion of gender comes up passions fly. The ancient Greek philosophers knew that when passion rules the mind, that the only job left for reason is that of the subservient task to find cleaver ways to satisfy the passions. They called it "putting passion before reason." Both sexes are guilty of this it seems.
(imho) humor is the mark of any good argument. What it comes down to is that we fear being judged by our bodyparts. That asking what bodyparts we have does absolutely nothing but allows you to judge us by them.

They are an arbitrary fact of our existence, no different than eye-color by which we are constantly identified and treated differently. The very notion that we might have different thoughts is a result of this identification.

But, may I ask why you brought my 'penis size' into this discussion sweetiepie? Did I make such a remark to you about your 'female private parts' that offended you? I tried to stay focused on the principles and not the personalties or even the body parts of the personalities. It seems that such a remark smacks more of sexism than by my asking where are all the women philosophers?
Your noting of my female parts was infact such a remark. I am more than my breasts, you are more than your penis size. Your question, where are all the women, is equivalent to: where are all the vaginas?

The particular point of this statement is that there doesn't have to be special place for gender. You can write your gender in each post, like you did at the beginning of this thread. If you think that sounds ridiculous, then that's why I think having a special place for biographies in a philisophical forum sounds ridiculous. Within a debate, anything brought to the table that doesn't immediately serve the truth can be safely considered a rhetoric, and in this case an authority by which to judge our reasoning, which with respect to gender is sexism.

[sweetiepie]

Chris isn't masculine. There were three Chris's in my junior high school class, and they were all female. So saying "seems to be masculine" strikes me as ...

US database of given names, Census 1990
Christine: Rank 43
Christopher: Rank 11

Fourtythird out of over four thousand does not let 'Chris' be a vanishingly small chance of being female.

true but the christophers outnumber the christines by enough that they have taken control of the nickname 'chris'.

then again, i was under the impression that 'sweetiepie' was a fairly unusual name for a girl... :D

[Earl]

VFR: Isn't at something. My wife and i both thought you were an old guy...preconceived notions! Are you male or female Earl? And whre is the old forum?

EARL: I’m male, for what it’s worth. Some of the old forums seem to show up automatically in a search of a user’s name in all open forums. This link will take you to some of my earlier debates: www.iidb.org/vbb/search.php?searchid=1280389 . Most of them aren’t found this way, though, since if you go back far enough the names of the posters are strangely deleted from the threads. For example, here’s one of my favourite debates, called “Jesus Christ: Worth Burying in a Tomb?”

www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=4148&highlight=jesus+christ+worth+burying+in+tomb

You can see where I start to post on the second page.

[Chris Porter]

true but the christophers outnumber the christines by enough that they have taken control of the nickname 'chris'.

then again, i was under the impression that 'sweetiepie' was a fairly unusual name for a girl... :D

Still, I consider the name to be so self-evidentially gender-neutral as to render any attempts to genderize it suspiciously poor reasoning. Or, I suppose, in some cases, poor reading skills. I've enjoyed having the name, possibly because the long pauses over the telephone amuse me so, when someone contacts me via a source that didn't disclose my gender. I admit I'm mean that way.

Sweetiepie is a name like Blue or Dragoneer or Atom--as a label for a human, it's completely indefinite as to gender, and I don't try. I understand that both my parents may be a 'Sweetiepie' from time to time.

[kennethamy]

Still, I consider the name to be so self-evidentially gender-neutral as to render any attempts to genderize it suspiciously poor reasoning. Or, I suppose, in some cases, poor reading skills. I've enjoyed having the name, possibly because the long pauses over the telephone amuse me so, when someone contac