That was sort of my point.
It is not social constructs that account for some gender disparities.
For example most men are not willing or interested in being stay at home parent compared to women.
That simply is not as validating to most men compared to women. — m-theory

There definitely are biological differences. Historically, black women in America allowed white men to see that the behavior of white women wasn't nature, but culture. Without a comparison of that kind, how would we tell the difference?

I don't understand this.
Sorry.
Can you rephrase or go into more depth?

You must know, as "a very conflictual person... I enjoy conflicts" that conflicts can be extremely risky -- not that one will necessarily be shot (except if you live in Chicago) but one is more likely to get fired, passed over for promotion, demoted, shunned, etc. if one is too conflictual. — Bitter Crank

I don't fight battles that I'm certain to lose now, that would be silly no? I have a new client who hates Trump for example, and I had to listen to him yesterday for ~30mins ranting about Trump related things. Of course I kept my mouth shut, nod the head and agreed with him, otherwise I'm sure I would've lost the job >:O

Maybe you are not a martyr to your values.

I mean - there's a difference between being conflictual and being an idiot no? >:O

You have a right to think whatever makes the most sense to you. — Mongrel

↪Bitter Crank Are you fucking kidding me? — Mongrel

So, are you really in favor of people thinking whatever makes the most sense to them or not?

The comment was about the STYLE of filling male roles, not that females can't fill male roles, or males can't fill female roles. If women and men were both drafted here the way they are in Israel, being a female soldier would be routinized. It isn't in the US.

If you find my style preferences to be an affront, then I say, that is too fucking bad.

This probably isn't exactly the speech she gave, but it was along these lines:

Sojourner Truth (1797-1883): Ain't I A Woman?
Delivered 1851
Women's Convention, Akron, Ohio

Well, children, where there is so much racket there must be something out of kilter. I think that 'twixt the negroes of the South and the women at the North, all talking about rights, the white men will be in a fix pretty soon. But what's all this here talking about?

That man over there says that women need to be helped into carriages, and lifted over ditches, and to have the best place everywhere. Nobody ever helps me into carriages, or over mud-puddles, or gives me any best place! And ain't I a woman? Look at me! Look at my arm! I have ploughed and planted, and gathered into barns, and no man could head me! And ain't I a woman? I could work as much and eat as much as a man - when I could get it - and bear the lash as well! And ain't I a woman? I have borne thirteen children, and seen most all sold off to slavery, and when I cried out with my mother's grief, none but Jesus heard me! And ain't I a woman?

Then they talk about this thing in the head; what's this they call it? [member of audience whispers, "intellect"] That's it, honey. What's that got to do with women's rights or negroes' rights? If my cup won't hold but a pint, and yours holds a quart, wouldn't you be mean not to let me have my little half measure full?

Then that little man in black there, he says women can't have as much rights as men, 'cause Christ wasn't a woman! Where did your Christ come from? Where did your Christ come from? From God and a woman! Man had nothing to do with Him.

If the first woman God ever made was strong enough to turn the world upside down all alone, these women together ought to be able to turn it back , and get it right side up again! And now they is asking to do it, the men better let them.

Obliged to you for hearing me, and now old Sojourner ain't got nothing more to say. — https://sourcebooks.fordham.edu/mod/sojtruth-woman.asp

Attractiveness and culturally appropriateness do not seem to be relevant to me. I personally do not care about either.

To me, it is about the telos of a particular job, regardless of gender. Just do the job well. I do not care whether you have a Y chromosome or not, but do not lower the bar to satisfy some kind of socialist ideal where all jobs are perfectly balanced by gender through affirmative action. Most fire-fighters are men because men are physically and mentally more competent. Are there exceptions? Sure, we call them lesbians.

Another exception: I will never hire a male nanny to look after my children. I have a deep suspicion of male nannies, and I hold the right to be sexist in this regard.

This is some dumb shit right here — Heister Eggcart

I have found that my shorter, less nuanced posts are getting read more, and generate more response. You may think my style preferences are some dumb shit, but at least you responded. Thanks!

So, are you really in favor of people thinking whatever makes the most sense to them or not?

The comment was about the STYLE of filling male roles, not that females can't fill male roles, or males can't fill female roles. If women and men were both drafted here the way they are in Israel, being a female soldier would be routinized. It isn't in the US.

If you find my style preferences to be an affront, then I say, that is too fucking bad. — Bitter Crank

You're right. Your aesthetics are your business. So do you disapprove of men in drag?

I remember being sensitive to this. Instinctively, I wore a dress and dress shoes and pantyhose.. the whole nine yards.. for the first few years I worked at AT&T. I didn't want people to think I was trying to be a man. After I got my creds, I started wearing whatever I wanted.

I think I see your point.
I did not mean to imply that there are not or never have been social constructs that result in gender disparity.

I just don't agree with the view that social constructs account for all gender disparity.

I just don't agree with the view that social constructs account for all gender disparity. — m-theory

I don't either. I used to have this half-assed theory about psychological differences. But I'm Gen-X. In my lifetime the old ways were mostly gone, but the ghost of patriarchy was still there. It was a pretty confusing scene. My generation is too soon to be trying to see what women can be when they're free of patriarchy.

I don't know how things are now. I know the generations that followed mine were more androgynous than we were.

Attractiveness and culturally appropriateness do not seem to be relevant to me. — Emptyheady

Many people would agree that you have not perceived attractiveness and cultural appropriateness as relevant to yourself. [just joking, of course...]

"telos" of a particular job... applying "telos" to say, small appliance repair or long lines supervisor at the old AT&T seems like a $10 word for a 10¢ concept. Maybe the telos of a philosopher..., male or female, would be appropriate.

Another exception: I will never hire a male nanny to look after my children. I have a deep suspicion of male nannies, and I hold that right to be sexist in this regard. — Emptyheady

I agree.

Very wealthy and powerful people used to employ both governors and governesses to educate their children. "Nanny" isn't quite the same thing -- more of a glorified babysitter. I would question why, exactly, a guy wanted to be a "nanny". Private tutor, sure; nanny, no. I would suspect the male nanny of being some sort of (heterosexual) wimp. (w.i.m.p. = whingy ineffective male person).

So do you disapprove of men in drag? — Mongrel

As long as the results are sufficiently absurd, no.

Caption for picture: Duchess Kate has long been a fan of wearing nude pantyhose to cover up her legs.

Question: Is there some other reason for wearing pantyhose?



Fortune Magazine answers the question, "Why pantyhose sales are still surprisingly strong"

I wonder if feminists should be considered original and significant female philosophers.
That certainly would increase the number among the ranks of philosophers if we take feminism into account would it not?

I don't know. I'm definitely not the person to answer that question. :)

Those shoes will deform your toes. It's crazy!

Well feminism certainly had an impact in western cultures there is no disputing that.

True.

Elizabeth Anscombe has rightfully been mentioned as a "significant original" philosophical thinker. If we take care to distinguish significance from influence, then many more philosophers, male or female, have achieved great depths of significance in their work in spite of the fact that they have been underappreciated. Among the male philosophers who's work seem to me to have had deep significance and who might deserve much more widespread influence are Gareth Evans, David Wiggins and Maurice Merleau-Ponty. Among the female philosophers are Jennifer Hornsby, Sabina Lovibond and Sarah Broadie. There ought to be many many more who I either don't know or who I (together with Charles Murray) am underappreciating.

If we take care to distinguish significance from influence — Pierre-Normand

Good point. Being influential, or considered significant, does not mean that a philosopher is philosophically significant. Like Hegel, for instance ;)

In my lifetime the old ways were mostly gone, but the ghost of patriarchy was still there. — Mongrel

>:O

In truth, what is meant by patriarchy is really lumping virtues under a word with oppressive connotations. What patriarchy really stands for is discipline, respect, devotion, love and filial piety. Those who are against patriarchy are against the intimacy that is possible between a man and a woman when they are devoted to each other in marriage.

The old ways may be gone, but they're coming back, bigger and better and stronger than ever before.

My generation is too soon to be trying to see what women can be when they're free of patriarchy. — Mongrel

To be "free" of patriarchy is codename for being immoral and not worrying about it. Obligations freely chosen are part of freedom, and it would destroy freedom itself to destroy such obligations.

What patriarchy really stands for is discipline, respect, devotion, love and filial piety. — Agustino

No, patriarchy "is a social system in which males hold primary power and predominate in roles of political leadership, moral authority, social privilege and control of property."¹

I don't see what that has to do with your claimed virtues. As if an egalitarian society leads to chaos, cruelty, and disrespect...

¹ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patriarchy

Oh but see if you just define it differently then the other thing won't exist because that's how reality works see.

Silly me.

What patriarchy really stands for is discipline, respect, devotion, love and filial piety.
— Agustino

No, patriarchy "is a social system in which males hold primary power and predominate in roles of political leadership, moral authority, social privilege and control of property."1

I don't see what that has to do with your claimed virtues. As if an egalitarian society leads to chaos, cruelty, and disrespect... — Michael

What patriarchy is and what it stands for are entirely different things, in the same way that I stand for all the virtues, blah, blah, although I embody all the vices.

No, patriarchy "is a social system in which males hold primary power and predominate in roles of political leadership, moral authority, social privilege and control of property."1 — Michael

I won't give two taels for your abstract definition. What does this practically, in concreto, mean? Does it mean that women are encouraged to be decent people and take into account the feelings of their families? Does it mean that women are encouraged to be respectful instead of arrogant? Does it mean that women are encouraged to be chaste, instead of promiscuous? Is that a form of lacking in "social privilege"? :-}

Oh but see if you just define it differently then the other thing won't exist because that's how reality works see. — StreetlightX

"Renounce the bong, and it will be a hundread times better for everyone" - adaptation from the Tao Te Ching X-)

You like the other progressives, rally your followers under these abstract definitions who no one knows what they really mean. You forget about the world as it exists concretely. You forget what patriarchy concretely stands for. What does a woman rebel against when she rebels against patriarchy? Is it a rebellion against decency? If not, then why does she go almost naked on the streets? What are these people? Tell me bruv... what are these?