woman and make-up

Get Email Updates Email this Topic Print this Page

VideCorSpoon
 
Reply Thu 28 Aug, 2008 08:35 am
@Khethil,
De_budding,However, I should note that this (if I'm not mistaken) was the breaking point earlier in the thread where another member took it very personally. So please, don't mistake my statements as a personal attack against you as he did, it is in the pursuit of the topic which I think you fully capable of pursuing. Males suffer from their own particular normative frameworks. I can say "normative frameworks" until the cows come home, but they are an important factor in the inquiry. Your statement implies that women are themselves naturally inclined to "competition" and "weight" and that you wonder if these characteristics would disappear if we juxtapose the issue. All I can say is, it is that particular generalization that in itself is the male normative framework that women face.

I agree with parts of your third paragraph. Though I have not said anything about make-up being "natural," I in fact believe that I said in one post (which may have been deleted) that makeup is "un-natural." Social and scientific archetypes created that illusory image of a "natural" occurrence in makeup. But to call it a psychological precedent implies that the need for makeup is engrained in the female psyche. We should be cautious of that, though I understand your point about a juxtaposition with men.

But I do see where you are going with this. Even if we did change, would women change their mannerisms to suit that change? All I can say on this is that that assumes that they (women) naturally possess the petty qualities I think men attribute to them. Women are still prisoners of our (men's) normative framework . But you have a very good insight into the issue by positing a juxtaposition though.


Khethil,

I think you appreciate de_budding's juxtaposition supposition as much as I do. I'm glad to see you agree with the underline issue of his statement. But is the "skewed lens" our only hope of giving women the respect they deserve? You in turn posit an awareness of the actual lens in itself and awareness of the bias themselves in order to cure the issue. Well said.
 
de budding
 
Reply Thu 28 Aug, 2008 09:45 am
@VideCorSpoon,
Do you not believe that make-up is an outgrowth of our mating ritual then Vide?

I watched a short clip from a documentary last night called 'Was Darwin Wrong?' And it showed an experiment where they cut some of a pea****'s feathers to see if it affected his average mating record for the year. Low and behold cutting a 1/4 of his feathers off 1/2'd his chances of mating... poor bird. Anyway as the programme mulled on to talk about the females, they mentioned that... the only reason the female chooses the male with the most extravagant feathers is because she wants to know that her would-be son will have a similar plumage, in turn, increasing her would be son's chances of mating should he be born. The males could look like anything really, as long as the consensus amongst the females was all favours the same trait.

What tickled me here is that the female pea****s have ultimate control of the men as the males are the ones wearing the make-up. The females could decide to change their minds at any minute about what 'quality' they wish to glorify, and as long as all the female pea****s consented to glorify said quality at once it would be a seamless and unproblematic transition... for the ladies at least.

Dan.
 
VideCorSpoon
 
Reply Thu 28 Aug, 2008 09:57 am
@de budding,
But if we admit to that assumption, that makeup is an outgrowth of mating rituals, we imply some manner of exotic substance to women (and men for that manner.) That is a very slippery slope.

But again there is some desire here to equate women to some form of animality. Though the effects of cutting a birds feathers effect the mating instances, is it right to attribute that to a woman? Do we need to boil the workings of a woman down to the fact that they are in essence an animal, or a lower form of life? Though, even as you point out, the position could very well be reversed.

It all seems like sexism positioning to me.
 
de budding
 
Reply Thu 28 Aug, 2008 01:47 pm
@VideCorSpoon,
We are all animals and I hate to think you are construing my posts as trying to describe woman as a lower form of life, although I have heard that from woman about men enough times :bigsmile: We can do men another time and everything that makes us the testosterone driven apes we really are. I think it is unavoidable fact that our sexual, evolutionary development is rooted in a suitor/chooser setting where the latter will invariably choose attributes in the former that garantee the resulting offspring a better chance of survival. As with the pea****s, the woman will choose a larger set of feathers because the gene o' 'large set of feathers' means her son will be more likely chosen as a mate for a future female.

And if make-up and such things are not an outgrowth of this, it is a comercial exploitation of this! Which further demands that these issues are somewhat psychological, 'else exploitation would not be possible without us noticing and refusing.

I sense your needlessly on the defence for reasons of chivalry or something :Cara_2:

Dan. Smile
 
Khethil
 
Reply Thu 28 Aug, 2008 03:56 pm
@de budding,
de_budding wrote:
And if make-up and such things are not an outgrowth of this, it is a comercial exploitation of this!


Very true... which is another issue; commodification. One also of dire consequences, many of which the western world (particularly those on a profit driven basis) run into. Sex is used to sell so much, so often, that through constant inculcation, views are altered in terms of what's "good", "right" or "desirable". Nasty business...

So yea, tough one. But if I may muse some more on this...

I just noticed that somehow this thread got nasty (I suppose I should check it more often, more thoroughly) and that's sad. I think it a fine mark of the caliber of folks frequenting these pages that they feel so very intense in their views of right and wrong. Like all things, the heart must be tempered. In any case, I think there's a lot of what I call "Violent Agreement" (wherein parties agree more than disagree, but language, emotionally-loaded terms and the like, get in the way).

So yea, I'd like to toss out one more summary of view that perhaps might clear some clouds, unmuddy the waters as it were...

Ethically, objectification (in its strictest definition) is actually *treating* someone as if they're an object. In this, the person doesn't recieve the respect and consideration they deserve; since (in the eyes of the observer) their net worth has been reduced to 'that element'. Treating someone like an object - to my mind - isn't ever ethical or right. The extremes of objectifcation can be horrific and all who see the individual as worthy of personhood's respect would necessarily abhore such treatement. But this is treating someone as an object... and objectification (as a sociological phenomina) is more complex; and its in that complexity that it touches the subject at hand. The problem is that humans are creatures of necessity.
[INDENT]Mr Mailman is someone I don't know. Given his appearance, he's a man of some years who, no doubt, has a myriad of stories and experiences, values, faults, strong points and more. Yet, to me... as I sit on my porch and see him come up, he is "the mailman". I have well in mind that he's a person and give him the requisite respect, but that's not what first comes to the human attention: He's the 'mailman', he has my mail! BOOM... Objectified (not treated as an object, but as a representative association).
[/INDENT]We objectify (in our views) on a regular basis.
[INDENT]When, at long last, the nurse steps into the waiting room and calls my name, for that instant I don't flash upon what makes him up as a Person. With any interraction, respect must of course be paid, but for that instant he's my savior! He's called my name! I'm given a pass... he's Objectified in that he is my key into the doctor's office. He represents something of interest.
[/INDENT]This isn't anything new, nor is it necessarily bad. It is but something that must be guarded against. How many of us have worked in an establishment where one is treated badly by customers who wish to vent their anger with the establishment? Who would like to be the proud recipient of all the hate one has pent up against a <thing>? This type of objectification happens all the time.

We initially recognize others by what they represent to us. This is natural - this is normal. But once again, we must guard against this which can only be done by consciously remembering that these are people, not things! Keeping this behavioral propensity in mind, let's get back to the topic.
[INDENT]Sally just noticed a particularly appealing male and does a rubber-neck double-take as he walks away, she is guilty of the Second Measure of Objectification. Her pleasure - her interest - isn't for him as a Person. She hasn't shown him any respect for his intellect, feelings or rights. She saw a body that she found appealing and reacted in a natural way. Shall we condemn her?

I have a beard. I honestly could take it or leave it (especially at *this* age), but my wife likes it. When I groom myself, I take care to trim it nicely (especially the hairs below my lip) because I know she likes it. I make myself up in a manner that I believe will please her. Have I digressed to a sloven, abject and belittling schmuck? Am I a sell-out for wanting to be visually appealing? I think not
[/INDENT]The complexity of human behavior prohibits us from putting a single face on such behaviors. Cultural taboos, mores and values have perhaps the largest effect. Further, how might we judge one person's motives for "fixing" themselves up? I've spent a good bit of time in my humble life in the pursuit of trying to understand others and from my experience alone, the answers you'll get are as numerous as can be.

Back in college, I found feminism. Yep... I'll admit it. I was probably about 25 or so when a particularly-influential Sociology professor presented materials, case-studies and the like that completely opened my eyes. To this day, I am inspired by the epiphony I experienced in those classrooms. Until then, I had no idea how deep-rooted and pervasive discrimination was. The good-old boy network is *well* in place and the last place I worked had in its employment probably the most sexually-discriminatory supervisor I'd seen in 46 states and 3 countries over two continents! Yep... he's still there and still hires based on bust size (nope, not kidding, and does it openly)

Males must; repeat MUST guard against treating women as objects. Our nature (to some greater or lessor extent) places us in a position of pursuit for 'the object'. How many of you know that guy who can't stop sexual inuendos and overt, sickening sexual references whenever a woman is discussed or seen? Horrible isn't it... embarassing isn't it!

We can and should appreciate all the beauty we encounter, in all its forms including sexual! But when we interract with people we must be on guard to give people their due respect.

I'm not sure this helps, but I do honestly believe the vitriolic nature of this discussion is due more to terminology and poor-wording than core differences in views.

Thanks
 
VideCorSpoon
 
Reply Thu 28 Aug, 2008 05:40 pm
@Khethil,
De_budding,

I'm not misconstruing your posts, but outlining the hypothetical problems that I see. But It is true that we could say the same things about men as well. But do women inertly revert to a biological sense when choosing a suitor? Probably not. Again, if we wereKhethil,PRIMARY THOUGHT

Perhaps I have been beating around the bush so to speak. This is perhaps a big, primary question to ask. If you stripped away all the attributes of a man and a woman, could there in some sense of equality? If there is, then all the comments of beauty, chivalry, biology are nullified because it is merely the acceptance of another sex, not the attributes they have that make them different.

The major point of contention with many has been that they have been hindered by preconceived notions of the opposite sex which in turn hinders them from looking at the issue clearly. There seems to be a major hang up there. Perhaps the issue is too abstract?
 
Zetetic11235
 
Reply Fri 29 Aug, 2008 12:17 pm
@VideCorSpoon,
I think what we shall come upon is the realization that there is a definite set of biological influences, and a definite set of experiential parameters, and these parameters are adjustable, however; this might not be true of the biological constants.

There may be a necessary, natural aspect of roles that is much more definite than we know of currently, and it may be wise to consider every theory with the utmost suspicion until this time, bearing in mind of course, the law of unintended consequences. I am quite leery of these theories, and have some difficulty with taking them entirely seriously, as they do tend to make a great deal of assumptions.

I can't really claim that I can even really consider a system *in its totality* that is better than the current one. That some of you claim the current system is inadequate, indicates that you can. Have you fully thought through the implications of the shift you desire? What immediate solutions might there be that we could test (at least superficially) here?
 
VideCorSpoon
 
Reply Fri 29 Aug, 2008 03:59 pm
@Zetetic11235,
But I think that there is some problem with such a reliance on physical/biological axioms. Will we come upon some realization that there is some definiteunderlies the biological factors that is the root cause of the problem. Can it be that we are trying to move into a biological arena that bears less relevance than the cognitive thoughts on the matter? Maybe.

I could not conceive of a "better" (and I use that term loosely) system than the one we have. But that some could claim that the current system is inadequate does not suppose that they would know of a better system. Such an "either/or" statement is extremely problematic.

But you ask whether "you" have given thought to the implications of the "shift" desired? Has there ever been a perfect system that was initially created and did not need to be mended, changed, or deconstructed? Also, it would almost sound like there would be some bad implication to a dynamic shift in the system of equality. This sounds like we are talking about freeing the Spartan helots.

Are there any immediate solutions to the problem (which I take to be true gender equality)? If there were, we would not be having this dialog. Maybe one thing we could test here is our preconceived notions on the issue.
 
Deftil
 
Reply Sat 30 Aug, 2008 02:43 am
@de budding,
de_budding;22976 wrote:
Do you not believe that make-up is an outgrowth of our mating ritual then Vide?

I watched a short clip from a documentary last night called 'Was Darwin Wrong?' And it showed an experiment where they cut some of a pea****'s feathers to see if it affected his average mating record for the year. Low and behold cutting a 1/4 of his feathers off 1/2'd his chances of mating... poor bird. Anyway as the programme mulled on to talk about the females, they mentioned that... the only reason the female chooses the male with the most extravagant feathers is because she wants to know that her would-be son will have a similar plumage, in turn, increasing her would be son's chances of mating should he be born. The males could look like anything really, as long as the consensus amongst the females was all favours the same trait.

What tickled me here is that the female pea****s have ultimate control of the men as the males are the ones wearing the make-up. The females could decide to change their minds at any minute about what 'quality' they wish to glorify, and as long as all the female pea****s consented to glorify said quality at once it would be a seamless and unproblematic transition... for the ladies at least.

Dan.


I hope I'll be excused if I make a couple of sidenotes -

1. I tried to type the word pea**** on here before and noticed that there is a filter for the word ****, so the word pea**** comes out with asterisks in it. I LOLed. =)

2. TECHNICALLY, I don't think there is such a creature as a "female pea****"", rather they are referred to as "peahens", the female of the "peafowl". That's just technically though, the wikipedia article clearly states that people commonly call the ladies of the species "female pea****s".

3. Evolutionarily speaking, I don't believe that the peahens could "decide to change their minds at any minute about what 'quality' they wish to glorify", because this selection behavior is the result of extremely long-term on-going evolutionary processes that can't see an abrupt species-wide change, simply because that's not how these things have revealed themselves to work, and how they need to work for evolution as we know it to occur. Smile
 
Zetetic11235
 
Reply Sat 30 Aug, 2008 12:53 pm
@Deftil,
The assumed problem is that of equality, that is what is at the base of this discussion, correct? Equality is highly subjective, especially when attempting to view our social system holistically rather than piece wise(picking out and correcting individual parts which may or may not result in a holistic downshift) and come up with an overall improvement to the system.

I do not think metaphysics helps us here, I would say that we cannot manipulate anything which is not physically relational, though I do have a circular definition of what is physical. I should be more specific and simply call it relational. We map out the relational aspects of objects with which we interact in the sciences and attempt to extrapolate what might be the overall pattern in these interactions such that we might manipulate a series of events to our likeing. In appealing to metaphysics, we appeal to conjectures which might proliferate to infinity and try to sort them out with a menial appeal to the state of affairs,i.e. we rely on our subjective interpretation of the state of affairs rather than extracting the objective(in the sense of general consensus) facts such as chemical/geneological factors. These factors can present us with correlation (though not causation) to help point us, in conjunction with the multitude of theoretical psychological conjectures, in the right direction.

If there is determined biological causation, then there is nothing 'under it' but physics that determines it. I suppose that these hypothetical traits developed at all points to their utility for some time in man's past, though I am no expert in evolutionary biology. If certain behaviors have genetic basis, then we have the arguement over whether or not such behaviors can be changed(probably not).

All in all, it seems that you have the view that 99% of people suffer from a pathology, but you must be able to point out what exactly it is that is negative about this outlook/behavior in order to define it as such. What is it that is unequal here? You need to be able to pin-point what it is that needs to be corrected in definite terms, and objectification is not the problem, it is an extrapolation on the negative actions which occur. We have to consider a very complex system of interactions to get down to the truth of the matter, and without bias.
 
VideCorSpoon
 
Reply Sat 30 Aug, 2008 02:33 pm
@Zetetic11235,
 
cupofcoffees
 
Reply Sun 31 Aug, 2008 01:35 am
@VideCorSpoon,
VideCorSpoon wrote:

I do not agree with you that "metaphysics" would not help us in this instance. This is an abstract concept that needs an abstract frame of mind. But to say that "metaphysics" does not help us implies that you are determined to boil the problem down to the physical factor alone. Is this in itself bias??? Therein lays the problem. I do not agree with that modus because it is bias, and as such, is counter to the issue of equality. To assume your set of reasoning would in essence shift the paradigm of the issue to a misplaced foundation of biology rather than the abstract (philosophical) issue of equality. This is a philosophical issue after all. Though I do commend your attempt to shift the paradigm, it is simply irrelevant.

Speaking as a woman, Vide, we're not equal. I could make general evaluations of both genders, but to avoid any further off-topic disagreements, I won't. Equality, as in... actually, the way you write is kind of confusing for me. It seems jumpy, and like I can't find just what it is you're getting at. It's not that you're advocating equality, but you didn't say you weren't, so I'm left with...metaphysics? Philosophy can be empirical; that's not new.

Women wear make-up because, #1, it's a custom of our culture! My mother does it, her mother's mother's mother did it ad infinitum. We do it because we're supposed to. It makes us feel like we fit in. If you don't do it, you will probably be considered homely, or improper. Lucky for me, I'm only 18 and can get away with it for the most part, but I wonder how other women will react when I'm 30?

The reasons for it, however, can get deep.

We, as humans, painted our faces since early man. We do it in tribes; we do it, I believe, as a means of expression, and whatever suits us.

Women can say they do it because it makes them feel good, or look prettier, but they're still going along with a popular trend. What do they need a reason for to wear the latest fashions?

It's sexual, absolutely, and this in turn separates them from the males and causes inequality. Women are innately unequal so sexual division through outward appearance like short hair/long hair or pink/blue since birth is going to indicate it, and emphasize the importance as such. All cultures do this, and it's a simple form of gaining social acceptance in a sexually based society.
 
VideCorSpoon
 
Reply Sun 31 Aug, 2008 10:25 am
@cupofcoffees,
 
Heather phil
 
Reply Sun 31 Aug, 2008 11:30 am
@cupofcoffees,
cupofcoffees wrote:

Women can say they do it because it makes them feel good, or look prettier, but they're still going along with a popular trend. What do they need a reason for to wear the latest fashions?

It's sexual, absolutely, and this in turn separates them from the males and causes inequality. Women are innately unequal so sexual division through outward appearance like short hair/long hair or pink/blue since birth is going to indicate it, and emphasize the importance as such. All cultures do this, and it's a simple form of gaining social acceptance in a sexually based society.


Forgive me for stepping in and out of this conversation, I may have missed some important points and I may repeat something that's already been said. But, I almost agree with what you're saying cupofcoffees, but I have to say I still buy into VideCorSpoon's idea of the Male Normative Framework (or the idea he quotes). I don't know this for a fact, but I'd hazard to guess that most fashion designers are male, most cosmetics CEOs are male and most trendsetters set trends based on male feedback. Women make themselves up etc because they know men are watching them.

Here's a tantalizing little quote from John Berger, a philosopher from the 70's: "Men survey women before treating them. Consequently how a woman appears to a man can determine how she will be treated. To acquire some control over this process, women must contain it and interiorize it. That part of a woman's self which is the surveyor treats the part which is the surveyed so as to demonstrate to others how her whole self would like to be treated." He goes on to say, "One might simplify this by saying: men act and women appear." He also says, "...ultimately how she appears to men, is of crucial importantce for what is normally thought of as the success of her life." (John Berger, Ways of Seeing, p. 46&47)

Less than a hundred years ago women existed solely to please men (and have their children, help with the farm etc, but she knew her place as subordinate). As I said in an earlier post, change is moving along, but it hasn't happened yet. I can't conceive of a future where women are totally equal. I think it truly is impossible in many ways, for example, we don't have the strength of men and therefore physically can not do many jobs traditionally perceived as 'manly' jobs. Also, women will never be able to father children, nor do many women want to be in charge of killing the spiders in the house and repairing the furnace or whatever. What I mean is, most women do not want true equality, that's why it can never exist. If we really did want that we'd have been on the revolution track at least once more in the last thirty years. We haven't. To me, that says, now that we've had a taste of what it feels like to be a man, we don't want to be equal to men, and we will accept the consequences of that. We can't have the career options that men have as well as the ability to stay home with our children (there are some women out there that do achieve this, but certainly the numbers aren't staggering). Some of the lucky few are allowed these benefits thanks to the historical uprising of women, but by no means is a man's power available to the women of the masses. The fact of the matter is, be it our upbringings or whatever, at some point in every womans life (dare I speak so boldly and affirmatively) she wants to be taken care of by a man. This is why we can never be equal and must continue to live in some sort of "Male Normative Framework".:Cara_2:
 
VideCorSpoon
 
Reply Sun 31 Aug, 2008 01:31 pm
@Heather phil,
Heather,female resistance to confront the system. That is very interesting. I would love to hear more elaboration on that. It's an excellent point.

DISCUSSION POINTdo you or do you not believe that such a framework exists?

I think that if we can acknowledge that, we could move into a deeper phase of the discussion. If you do not agree, please stipulate otherwise.
 
Didymos Thomas
 
Reply Sun 31 Aug, 2008 10:06 pm
@VideCorSpoon,
Sure there is, at least something akin to, a male normative framework - just as women have their own.

One thing I'd like to point out, though. Heather makes many good points, including this one:

Quote:
I can't conceive of a future where women are totally equal. I think it truly is impossible in many ways, for example, we don't have the strength of men and therefore physically can not do many jobs traditionally perceived as 'manly' jobs. Also, women will never be able to father children, nor do many women want to be in charge of killing the spiders in the house and repairing the furnace or whatever. What I mean is, most women do not want true equality, that's why it can never exist.


Being different, and having different social roles does not necessarily entail inequality. Men tend to take on certain roles and women others. Men father children, women give birth. Both are equally necessary for procreation.

Inequality between the sexes is a very serious issue, but an issue that I think can be overcome. Are men and women different? Absolutely, on a fundamental level. But every man is different and every women is different, too.
 
cupofcoffees
 
Reply Sun 31 Aug, 2008 10:30 pm
@Didymos Thomas,
First, I commend you on your neutral views, Vide. I, myself, am an extremist...but to be fair, a polite one. I'm not feminist, not in the modern sense, because I disagree with a much more complicated factor of the technosphere and mass society, and from this Zerzan perspective, I see gender equality as a non-issue that is so minor, it's not worth being addressed as it would be non-existent under other circumstances.

When I look at actual industrial living or make-up industry; hair and beauty products, I have no opinion on the matter, but to eliminate it. Subjugation of the opposite sex is minor when coupled with that which has been done to nature in its singular form. In order to fully understand my views, it would take more than a post on make-up.

Women, in capitalist society, are inevitably the proletariat to men (I'm not Marxist, but very anti-capitalist) They're treated as property; bought and sold. All the while they're also the buyers, and in this case, doubly screwed over. The female image is for entertainment purposes, and has no intrinsic value; it's of equal value to a man's favorite tv show, if she isn't already it.

The sexes are naturally different, weak and strong within areas, and evolved for the purpose of survival. I'm not a liberal because I don't play by the rules. I don't believe in "rights"; I don't even believe in civilization. It offers a safety net of protection in mediocrity that breeds out the individual where there is one globalized unity of specialized parts. Instead of small scale communities of bonded families connected with the earth; we're now a living, breathing organism massively reproducing, and domesticating causing serious harm to ourselves.

"woman and make-up" is so small, it upholds the weight of my pinky finger.
 
Zetetic11235
 
Reply Mon 1 Sep, 2008 12:36 am
@cupofcoffees,
So...you're an anarcho-socialist(or rather an anarcho-primitavist, judging by the avatar)? I have been itching to posit this query to one with your outlook: How would one accomplish the level of global interaction and continue the complex lines of trade by which technological progress is maintained in this system? Also, how might the families be set up such that they can trade with families of very disparate regions who have access to resources unavailable to them without some system that operates on a massive scale? After all, it is indeed necessary for either a rather far reaching entity or at least a very closely interconnected series of entities such that we can have things such as the internet, telephones, roads and electricity and have them homogenized in such a way that we can all utilize them in general interaciton is it not?

On a different note, how might one avoid despotism and fuedalism in this seemingly disjunctive series of subgovernments? Sure there might be closer bonding in these families, but what of feuds between these families? Wouldn't this simply shrink and multiply the problems we now face rather than eliminate them?

You claim that mass government is a saftey net, and you are indeed correct, but this is a very witting state of affairs. The saftey net provides a net for the mediocre of course, but also of the great. Do you think Steven Hawking would have survived without the aid of that saftey net? Or do you consider him to be mediocre? The mediocre are what they are, what makes you consider yourself above them? What have you done? Have you given any great things to humanity? From some perspectives I am sure nearly anyone might be considered mediocre.

Furthemore, what do you mean connected with the Earth? We are indeed in many senses connected with the Earth, but what do you mean by this? In many of the same senses we are connected to the stars and to the nebulas and the universe as a whole. I would say that if anything we must look beyond the Earth if we are to ensure our survival as a species. If we do not move on, there will be a time when it is too late. Getting extreamly theoretical and distant, the Big Rip, if it were ensured to be a true state of affairs, we might essentially be doomed as a species unless we can master physical reality to a very high degree.

I strongly disagree with the primitivist outlook on science. Science has proven its worth and its worth is far greater than anything any social theory. Science is an instittion of utility, and anyone who understands science properly understands its limitations. Sure there are a few who stand in awe of its accomplishments and hope for a grand unification of the relational framework of the universe, but this probably will never come and most of us realize that. There cannot be any sort of abandonment of science if one is to admit that the nature of beasts is self preservation, for science and civilization are both directed towards this utility, it would be both foolish and unnatural to abandon them. I do not know if you hold the common primitivist stance, but if you do; I would welcome extensive debate on this issue in another forum. Just let me know and I will start the thread up.

I am very suspicious of this set of ideals, and your spin on them sounds almost nietzschean.
 
VideCorSpoon
 
Reply Mon 1 Sep, 2008 09:05 am
@Zetetic11235,
Didymos,Cupofcoffees,Enquiry, stressing a need to tear down the entire system. Ironically, he was also married to Mary Wollstonecraft, a radical feminist. And I know they both influenced the others work. So perhaps your notion has merit and precedence.

That women would be the proletariat of men is in many ways especially true. Women and the idea of property is still an issue that is debated even today. Middle eastern "wife bazaar's" still exist and are thriving. But the issues that you mention still underline a male normative framework. All the more reason for there to be some examination of our preconceived notions.

But I would caution against your views about not playing by the rules and the denial of rights. That is a very slippery slope that has been revisited time and time again throughout history. But these are indeed factors for a different topic and thread.

That "women and makeup" is a small issue, I would say this. A small issue is a big issue to someone. The issue at hand deals with the existential being of women in particular. I believe it is a key ontological factor in the true equality of women.


Zentetic,

Though much of your thoughts are valid, we may be deviating from the topic of the thread.
 
Zetetic11235
 
Reply Mon 1 Sep, 2008 12:29 pm
@VideCorSpoon,
No worries videcor, we made a thread in which to discuss these issues. Its in the philosophy of science section.
 
 

 
Copyright © 2023 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 01/27/2023 at 06:53:44