Comments | siderea: [pshrinkery, tech, school, atheism, feminism, me] Odds and ends (long)

siderea

[pshrinkery, tech, school, atheism, feminism, me] Odds and ends (long)

Dec 01, 2006 21:40

1) I had my appointment with my pshrink last night. I had at the previous appointment printed out the How to Make Friends (for INTPs) and Friendly Christmas Advice posts for her to read. I'd included the full comments, too. Quite aside from what she and I talked about, wrt me, she was very fascinated and impressed by the discourse in the ( Read more... )

atheism, school, tech, me, essay, feminism, pshrinkery

Comments 40

Sharing autobeast December 2 2006, 07:45:49 UTC

Wow, it just occurs to me, that while, at a quick and admittedly almost glibly superficial, that we seem to share some dispositions and attitudes, but reading this confirms that what leads people to dispositions and attitudes are rarely immediately predictable from quick and almost glib points of view ( ... )

autobeast December 2 2006, 07:47:30 UTC

Sidenote: I thought INTPs were rare, but I find them on the web dispropotionately to the numbers normally given. Maybe it is the medium.

siderea December 2 2006, 08:07:06 UTC

I'm pretty confident it's the medium.

autobeast December 2 2006, 08:08:19 UTC

You can get me to talk online. I don't do so much in the nonwired space, so I see your point.

(The comment has been removed)

Thread 9

Labels cvirtue December 2 2006, 12:01:18 UTC

I used to read a lot of feminist literature, and came away with a different set off labels, which may have been left behind by the wave of current thinking.

Radical feminists = Mary Daly and similar, for example. This doesn't map to your definition, and since you've done a lot of thought on this recently and I haven't, I expect my labels are inaccurate.

The type you call radical, I would call normal feminism, and the cultural, I'd call lip-service feminist.

Sigh. I'd better find me some modern things to read on the topic. Have any particular recommendations?

Re: Labels sethg_prime December 4 2006, 03:18:32 UTC

There are a large number of feminist philosophies/factions that are called (or call themselves) "radical": Daly's beyond-God-the-Father theology; Marxist feminism (cf. the 70s classic The Dialectic of Sex); lesbian separatism; antiporn feminism of the Dworkin/MacKinnon variety; ecofeminism ("women have a special link with Mother Earth"); social ecofeminism ("the pariarchy is bad for the environment"), anarcha-feminism, historical, tragical, tragical-comical-pastoral....

I was a Women's Studies minor at MIT and I enjoyed the program a lot. (Contrary to stereotypes, (a) I was not made to feel like The Enemy because of my Y chromosome and (b) I did not join the program to pick up girls.) The syllabus for their Intro Women's Studies class would not be a bad place to start.

Re: Labels cvirtue December 4 2006, 04:48:22 UTC

Excellent idea, thanks!

ironphoenix December 2 2006, 16:23:28 UTC

I think I'm with lady_guenievre and leora in wanting there to be no barriers against women and men having either traditional or non-traditional roles.

Up to a point, I would qualify as a radical, rather than a cultural, feminist. However, I diverge from the Radical credo a bit further along. I expect that even if the ideal above is fulfilled, there will be a predominance of women in traditionally female roles, and of men in traditional males ones. As far as I'm concerned, that's okay.Picture a continuum between traditional male roles and traditional female ones, and distributions of interest for each gender along that axis. Radical feminism, as expressed here, would suggest that the two distributions are identical. Cultural feminism, on the other hand, would suggest that they are narrow, and overlap only over a very limited range right in the middle. I suggest that the actual distributions are somewhere between those, with maxima in the traditional roles, but with broad bell-curve skirts extending into the other side of the chart ( ... )

re: Radical feminism, as expressed here, would suggest that the two distributions are identical etherial December 2 2006, 19:07:29 UTC

The two dispositions are completely unknown, and knowing them may in fact only lead to discrimination. It's a statistical impossibility for them to be equal, but we assume they're equal in order to avoid discrimination.

Re: Radical feminism, as expressed here, would suggest that the two distributions are identical ironphoenix December 4 2006, 15:04:12 UTC

I aim for a society where knowing the curves wouldn't lead to discrimination and prejudice as you fear, because I find it not impossible (or even unlikely) that they will become known.

Re: Radical feminism, as expressed here, would suggest that the two distributions are identical etherial December 4 2006, 15:14:28 UTC

By the time we can reasonably guess at them, it probably will be safe to do so.

Thread 7

cellio December 2 2006, 23:45:51 UTC

Wow. Lots of interesting stuff here. Thanks for sharing!

1. Sounds like your pshrink might have some interesting reading ahead. :-) Introducing people to different forms of net communication is fun; I still smile when I think about the fact that I was the undergrad who introduced Sara Kiesler to the concept of flaming. She got years of research out of that (and was kind of a big name in the field, as I understand it). Yeah, I got an A in the class, and a job. :-)

2a. The Reform movement of the 19th century was a direct result of the Enlightenment. Lots of things have changed since then, but that's where the roots are, and it explains a lot. I've seen a 19th-century siddur in which the parts were labelled "congregation" (I think) and "minister"2b. Thank you thank you thank you. I have long perceived two types of feminist, which I think of as "equality-based" and "superiority-based", and I think of the latter as hypocrits. I never thought to research it; I figured it was a difference among people (-ists) more than movements ( ... )