the real poison in academic philosophy

[catwoman15]

It's also not at all surprising to find a budding, young, brilliant philosopher (in his own estimation) arguing both that academic philosophy is idolatry and also that women should gtfo of his manly paradise of ideas. 

 

You can call me a bitch if you like, I understand that it's upsetting when you don't get what you want and feel you deserve. But you being a failure doesn't make me a bitch.

[fuzzylogician]

Friends, dfinfley has been warned and ask to watch his/her language. I hope this solves the problem and the forum can return to being a helpful and friendly place for everyone. If this doesn't help, please use the reports to let us know.

[bar_scene_gambler]

Friends, dfinfley has been warned and ask to watch his/her language. I hope this solves the problem and the forum can return to being a helpful and friendly place for everyone. If this doesn't help, please use the reports to let us know.

Much appreciated fuzzylogician.

[dfindley]

billy -- ya thanks de lose wrote books about others and then turned around to be a hack

case in point, thanks. ps i dont think a chapter dedicated to a response in a historical discussion can be considered a book

and the only reason dr lose is idolized is because he is famous -- not because his 'deontology' ever went anywhere.

im so sick and ashamed of this community

[bar_scene_gambler]

im so sick and ashamed of this community

Then by all means, feel free to stop participating.

[axiomness]

I hold in distain anyone who still uses 'he' and 'him' to denote the neutral human. But that's just me.

 

Edited December 29, 2013 by axiomness

[bar_scene_gambler]

I don't get this at all. I don't see how there is any necessary connection between using she as a gender-neutral pronoun and citing a woman. Sometimes it just happens to be the case that there aren't any women who have done relevant work regarding what one is writing about, and that's okay.

I usually just alternate he and she in my examples so as not to favor one or the other, but I'm not going to disdain those who use "she" as a gender-neutral pronoun (though I do think disdaining those who use he as gender-neutral is a bit strong as well. Honestly, although they may write in a sexist fashion, it's also kind of sexist to only use she as a gender-neutral pronoun). Regardless, you shouldn't be disdaining anyone because of their pronoun usage. It's ridiculous.

Edited December 29, 2013 by bar_scene_gambler

[dfindley]

there arent really a lot of women publishing decent philosophy because the smartest ones are housewives.

[dfindley]

ive never read any decent philosophy from a woman. ever.

ayn rand came really close, but i had to conclude he was more inspirational than genuinely decent as a philosopher.

[dfindley]

(ps i yes i do use the pronoun 'he' for a women when i entertain the hypothetical notion that he might actually be practicing philosophy)

[catwoman15]

I don't get this at all. I don't see how there is any necessary connection between using she as a gender-neutral pronoun and citing a woman. Sometimes it just happens to be the case that there aren't any women who have done relevant work regarding what one is writing about, and that's okay.

I usually just alternate he and she in my examples so as not to favor one or the other, but I'm not going to disdain those who use "she" as a gender-neutral pronoun (though I do think disdaining those who use he as gender-neutral is a bit strong as well. Honestly, although they may write in a sexist fashion, it's also kind of sexist to only use she as a gender-neutral pronoun). Regardless, you shouldn't be disdaining anyone because of their pronoun usage. It's ridiculous.

 

It actually isn't sexist to use she exclusively. Sexism requires structures of power and oppression to which women simply don't have access. Honestly, it makes me cringe to see someone using all he, but I don't actually disdain them. I was trying to make a point about the great genius young white man, who dfindley seems to think he is, and who is held in such great esteem. Honestly, I'd respect someone more who actually cited women and used 'he' for all their examples than I'd respect someone who plays lip-service to an inclusive discipline without actually respecting women and citing them.

[bar_scene_gambler]

It actually isn't sexist to use she exclusively. Sexism requires structures of power and oppression to which women simply don't have access. Honestly, it makes me cringe to see someone using all he, but I don't actually disdain them. I was trying to make a point about the great genius young white man, who dfindley seems to think he is, and who is held in such great esteem. Honestly, I'd respect someone more who actually cited women and used 'he' for all their examples than I'd respect someone who plays lip-service to an inclusive discipline without actually respecting women and citing them.

Fair enough, and I appreciate you making the point.

EDIT: Actually, I do think that there might be a problem with your definition of sexism, only because I don't think that it's necessary for there to be an oppressive power structure in order for there to be sexism. Women can absolutely be sexist, because all sexism really requires, in its most basic form, is a prejudice or discriminatory attitude towards another based on gender. Power structures and oppression are a result of sexism, not an essential component. If you're implying that it's impossible for a woman to be sexist, then that's just silly. In all though, it's really a pointless conversation to have here. The point I was trying to make is that there's no necessary connection between using a particular pronoun and who one cites.

Edited December 29, 2013 by bar_scene_gambler

[dfindley]

esteemed genius....

.....i am an embarrassment!

[Loric]

I feel like you're saying the KKK isn't racist because they're a minority who is unable to oppress people as effectively as they'd like.

[catwoman15]

No. I'm saying that what BSG called sexism could be more aptly called 'reverse-sexism' in the same style as 'reverse-racism' neither of which exist because of the way that power and oppression work.

 

The KKK is racist because people of color have been historically marginalized via various methods of structural and individualized oppression and the KKK is part of that story, taking the upper-hand by virtue of being white.

 

Whether the KKK is very effective or not has nothing to do with it being racist or not.

[bar_scene_gambler]

No. I'm saying that what BSG called sexism could be more aptly called 'reverse-sexism' in the same style as 'reverse-racism' neither of which exist because of the way that power and oppression work.

 

The KKK is racist because people of color have been historically marginalized via various methods of structural and individualized oppression and the KKK is part of that story, taking the upper-hand by virtue of being white.

 

Whether the KKK is very effective or not has nothing to do with it being racist or not.

That's an odd use of the word "sexism" and "racism". Is it possible to say, "X is racist", and have X be something that isn't based upon a power structure and still makes sense? Of course it is. If X were, say, a black man calling a white man a "cracker" or "honky" for some reason or another, we would say that he was being racist. The first thing to come to our minds wouldn't be, "That is non-existent reverse racism". That's just pointless philosophizing after-the-fact. The situation I described is just as racist as a white man calling a black man a nigger, and plain sense tells us that. What that indicates, to me anyways, is that power structures are not essential to the meaning of the word "racism". However, in all usages of the word racism that I can think of, discrimination or prejudice are implied.

Can we do the same thing for sexism? Let's say that a woman sees a single father trying to calm his crying infant daughter and remarks that only a woman is capable of properly raising a little girl. We would probably say that's a sexist remark. We certainly wouldn't say, "Don't be such a reverse-sexist!". After all, how could we since such things don't exist? 

Furthermore, what does inventing the term "reverse-racism/sexism" do exactly if it can't even exist? It seems about as useful as discussing unicorns. It seems to me that these are, at best, misuses of the words.

Edited December 29, 2013 by bar_scene_gambler

[ProfLorax]

That's an odd use of the word "sexism" and "racism".

It's not actually an odd use of the word; catwoman's definitions are pretty standard in academia. Pick up any textbook on racism and sexism, and you'll see the definition catwoman is using. Racism=prejudice + power. Sexism=prejudice + power. The distinction serves to keep attention on the larger, systematic oppressions at play, rather interpersonal interactions.

[bar_scene_gambler]

It's not actually an odd use of the word; catwoman's definitions are pretty standard in academia.

I suppose that's the problem I'm having. Maybe it's because I've been reading too much OLP, but it seems to me that since there are cases where it makes sense to say "X is racist/sexist" and have X be something unrelated to a power-structure at play, then power structures aren't inherent in the meaning of the word. I'm not a fan of academic re-definitions if there already exist perfectly sensible definition in our everyday language. It also seems to me that, if the usage of the word is only standard in academia, then it is an unusual usage of the word. If it boils down to that though, then I guess the conversation can't really continue, because we're talking about language in two completely different ways.

 

 

 

The distinction serves to keep attention on the larger, systematic oppressions at play, rather interpersonal interactions.

What's the point (serious question)?

Edited December 29, 2013 by bar_scene_gambler

[catwoman15]

The point, really, is to keep in mind that prejudice without power has little effect on society and people; meanwhile, prejudice with power has great effects on society and people.

 

While this use of the terms may seem to be "redefinitions" they really aren't. These are the standard working definitions in critical race theory and feminist theory and have been for a very long time--it may seem like a redefinition, but that could be because your working definition is insufficient to capture the reality of the actual concept.

 

Also, it's a mistake to think there is a possible case of racism or sexism to which power isn't relevant. Without power racism and sexism would cease to exist in any real way.

[dfindley]

thats kind of dumb.

ive lived all over the world and suffered racsim everywhere. the perpetuator in every case wields some kind of power -- social or emotional.

but look what the feminists and race theorists did: now it is even impossible for blacks or mexicans to be racist . good philosophizing O_O

[greencoloredpencil]

catwoman15,

 

I want to better understand your position so I have the following questions. 

Consider a case where person A from an historically discriminated against population uses a slur word against a person B from a privileged background. Or perhaps assume a case where A holds beliefs about B just because of B's background. 

If I'm understanding correctly, these are cases of "reverse-racism." They are not cases of racism because there is no power structure present. However, cases of reverse-racism don't exist. But how can this be? You just identified these as cases of reverse racism. I'm sure you don't mean to say that cases like these never happen so I'm trying to figure out what you mean by identifying an act as "reverse-racism" and then saying that "reverse-racism" doesn't exist.  

Do you mean to say that these cases have no moral weight?  Do you think that A has done anything wrong? 

Lastly, if we stipulate that racism/sexism involves a power structure then it follows definitionally that there can be no cases of racism/sexism without a power structure. Is this what you mean by saying that "reverse-racism" doesn't exist? This alone would be uninteresting though, since it merely follows by definition.  The interesting part would then be what your argument for defining racism in this way is. Could you elaborate a little or point me toward some articles/papers that argue for such a definition?

Edited December 29, 2013 by greencoloredpencil

[dfindley]

not

[bar_scene_gambler]

The point, really, is to keep in mind that prejudice without power has little effect on society and people; meanwhile, prejudice with power has great effects on society and people.

 

While this use of the terms may seem to be "redefinitions" they really aren't. These are the standard working definitions in critical race theory and feminist theory and have been for a very long time--it may seem like a redefinition, but that could be because your working definition is insufficient to capture the reality of the actual concept.

 

Also, it's a mistake to think there is a possible case of racism or sexism to which power isn't relevant. Without power racism and sexism would cease to exist in any real way.

 

You assume your own conclusion by claiming that without power racism and sexism would not exist. We're philosophers here and should be above such things. Of course there are cases where we say something is racist or sexist without a relevant power structure. I just gave you two ordinary examples.

 

What is prejudice without a power structure? Is it just prejudice? If so, would it be better to call the exclusive use of the pronoun "she" prejudiced or discriminatory? Does that sit better with you?

[catwoman15]

catwoman15,

 

I want to better understand your position so I have the following questions. 

Consider a case where person A from an historically discriminated against population uses a slur word against a person B from a privileged background. Or perhaps assume a case where A holds beliefs about B just because of B's background. 

If I'm understanding correctly, these are cases of "reverse-racism." They are not cases of racism because there is no power structure present. However, cases of reverse-racism don't exist. But how can this be? You just identified these as cases of reverse racism. I'm sure you don't mean to say that cases like these never happen so I'm trying to figure out what you mean by identifying an act as "reverse-racism" and then saying that "reverse-racism" doesn't exist.  

Do you mean to say that these cases have no moral weight?  Do you think that A has done anything wrong? 

Lastly, if we stipulate that racism/sexism involves a power structure then it follows definitionally that there can be no cases of racism/sexism without a power structure. Is this what you mean by saying that "reverse-racism" doesn't exist? This alone would be uninteresting though, since it merely follows by definition.  The interesting part would then be what your argument for defining racism in this way is. Could you elaborate a little or point me toward some articles/papers that argue for such a definition?

 

 

I'm sorry I'm not making myself clear here. What we call "reverse-racism" doesn't exist as racism. Obviously the events perpetrated continue to have existed. (My earlier post was written in haste, thus making it seem like maybe I have some really weird metaphysical views, when I really don't.) And yes, to the former in your last paragraph. I'm totally comfortable with the fact that I'm not saying anything controversial here. I never intended to.

 

Also, I'm to BSG, I'm not really here to educate you about feminist philosophy or critical race theory. I'm not assuming a conclusion, I'm providing a well accepted definition, which isn't an argument. 

Edited December 29, 2013 by catwoman15

[Greenwood16]

I'm not a fan of academic re-definitions if there already exist perfectly sensible definition in our everyday language.

 

This all seems very silly.