Dear Wallace Wright:
On Jan 6, 5:19=A0pm, Wallace Wright <wwri...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 05, 2008 at 08:12:28PM -0700, N:dlzcD:aol T:com (dlzc)
wrote:
> > >> > Consider the once common practise of referring
> > >> > to a sailing ship as a 'she': =A0an object subject to
> > >> > the piloting of a man.
>
> > >> An object that holds the lives of the crew in her
> > >> "womb" (aka. hold), and stands between her
> > >> captain and the Sea (also sometimes
> > >> referred to as a woman).
>
> > >> Mother Earth.
>
> > > Perhaps this expression is representative of non-
> > > Christian influence on the English language?
>
> > Differentiation between male and female predates
> > Christianity. =A0I was simply trying to provide some "non
> > male domanance" examples, where gender is involved.
> >=A0Many "transactions" are described without invoking
> > gender.
>
> I don't doubt that, but at issue here are the attitudes
> which are attached to gender identity as applied to
> inanimate objects.
Inanimate objects, almost without exception, are all *used*. We are
manipulators. Imagine some other possibility.
>=A0Christianity seems to encourage differentiated status to
> people and objects contingent to their assigned gender.
We use things. We always have, and we always will. Your point is not
worth making, nor is your attempt to lay blame to Christians. I
understand that you may be picking a fight with the (currently)
largest group, for purposes unknown.
> In most branches of Christiantiy, women are a subordinate
> class to men in terms of political status: thay cannot aspire
> to the clergy; and traditional Christian mores in fact place
> women in the kitchen, barefoot and pregnant. =A0The implicit
> hypothesis I am using (testing) here asks whether arbitrary
> objects of the female gender are similarly classed by
> practising Christians, with usage regimes that parallel
> women's subordinate status to men within the culture.
*Everything* is treated in this way. In fact, most people treat every
other person in this way. We poke a stick into a hornet's nest,
because we know what will happen. Something must die in order for us
to live.
I don't see that some minor local inflection on how shitty we treat
our "total environment" is of any help. Grace begets grace. Finding
fault only finds fault.
> > For the most part, the captain and crew hold their ship
> > in very high regard. =A0And if they don't, they die.
>
> That is a practical consideration of boating, and does not
> necessarily reflect the anthropomorphic psychology at
> work in the sociological domain of extended gender identity.
It is a fact of life. And if we treated the ship named "Earth"
differently...
> > >> I think you are looking at this by "exception",
> > >> rather than by rule. =A0And I know there are (by
> > >> my label) at *lot* of =A0execeptions... =A0:>(
>
> > > I suspect that if you examine Greek mythology
> > > and its historical influence on subsequent socio-
> > > politial mores, you find an influence more in line
> > > with the sentiment I expressed.
>
> > Probably not Greek. =A0There were female Greek gods,
> > and quite powerful ones. =A0One would never say that
> > Zeus was master of Hera.
>
> Perhaps not. =A0Nevertheless, the ontology of gender
> encompasses more than arbitrary gender identification,
> whether or not we are referring to people or inanimate
> objects or ideas.
This is a feature of the language. There are languages that are
gender neutral (for objects). There are others that assign maleness
to things that are in virgin state, and femaleness to a processed
state. And more...
Someone popped in and said it was "written language" that was the
beginning of this gender bias. The Greek's written language predated
their gender bias, so I would submit that it only permitted easier
"cross generation propagation"... your memetic reference below.
>=A0Furthermore the human brain has intrinsic properties that
> defy strict categorical compartmentalization of cognitive
> domains -- attitudes (feelings, even) appear to 'leak' across
> related domains and so it seems reasonable to say that
> mysogyny, as a practical matter, will not be exclusive to
> the subordination of individual women and will affect
> attitudes held towards objects identified with the female
> gender. =A0As gender is implicit to English and the judeo-
> christian tradition, there is a situation where the whole
> culture affects individuals and individuals affect the whole
> culture in a grandiose feedback loop.
'Misogyny' is "hatred or strong prejudice". You seem to want to turn
a tide into a tidal wave. "Archie Bunker" is easy to spot...
> Consquently it does not necessarily require a
> mysogynist to subordinate feminine objects over
> masculine objects; some of the attitude is carried
> with the language and culture like a virus.
The bias can be carried by language, but we can learn to respect our
entire environment. As cats are trained to do... by their mothers.
> Hardly rocket science given what has been said of
> memetics by Dawkins and others.
>
> > > Unfortunately, that is an academic undertaking
> > > that I have not done, so I can only offer subjective
> > > anecdotal references on this particular point.
>
> > Your point is valid. =A0It is simply not "universal", nor
> > "eternal". =A0It just descibes the "dip" we are currently in (and
> > are hopefully on our way out of).
>
> I would never use 'universal' or 'eternal' to describe the
> situation of gender inequality.
You have said exactly that in your christian and judeo-christian
references. You have disallowed that early Christians might have been
gender neutral, and the "holy Roman church" might not have impressed
gender bias. And you have disallowed that such bias can ever be
removed, even though female clergy, and even female Christian
ministers can be found even today.
>=A0That pronouncement is much more characteristic of
> wishful thinking among rabid ideologues.
Look in the mirror. You are damn yourself each time you pick out a
single religion, when you only seek an example of systemic gender
bias.
>=A0Practical gender neutrality is what I would call a goal of
> maturation, and today requires a non-superficial
> understanding of the biases intrinsic to contemporary
> popular cultures. =A0Possibly the transhumans and
> extropians better approach this ideal, but most of what I
> read of their literature is focused on the technical
> enterprise of getting out of this local energy minimum by
> way of scientific and engineering advance.
We will destroy each other, reducing Mankind to savages, over the last
bit of oil, if we don't. When we stop using Mother Earth, by an act
of conscious will, is this not a good first step? In fact, is this
not the only step that will allow humankind to maintain some
recognizeable form of civilzation? How much of our imagined future is
now like "Mad Max" or "Conan the Barbarian" (a good question for these
newsgroups)?
I think it is wonderful that someone is imagining some form of
"continuing harmony" or "coexistence".
Your words can be last...
David A. Smith
|
