a cry towards the absurd

The struggle itself toward the heights is enough to fill a man's heart. One must imagine Sisyphus happy.Camus
mail list ° site map ° @  

  existentialism ° art ° poetry ° exquisite corpse ° chat ° search engine
( the cry ) Philosophy Discussion Board

Re: do u mind

[Follow Ups] [Post Followup] [(the cry) philosophy discussion board]

Posted by Spratley on Thursday, December 05, 2002 at 20:16:25 :

In Reply to: do u mind posted by I/ on Thursday, December 05, 2002 at 16:18:11 :

: Indira:
: forget the middle ages. make a trip to argentina, buenos aires, and get 3km away from downtown. not even that, 400mts from the congress, and you would inmediately understand what I am talking about. the vast majority in latin america, men and women are ignorant, I say this word without any sort of despise or personal claim of enlightment. they are ignorant, as ignorant as to think they have to have ten children because it is ok to keep their male that way, that cocaine with shattered glass is cool and necessary, that everything can be cured with witches and magicians, that you don't work unless someone hires you, they cannot read, they barely finished second grade at primary school, because they had their milk cup everyday, and they sell herbs on the street for fifty cents of pesos, that is about 0.13 US, start with prostitution at the age of 12 or younger, and the boys sell drugs since they are 13. many of them have already killed someone by the time they're 15, and girls already give birth to their second child when they are 14 or 15.
: we have, as well as bolivia, paraguay, brazil, colombia, peru, venezuela, chile, etc, etc a majority of poverty, misery, and crime. 70 percent of our children population lives below misery levels, that is, with less than a peso a day, that is, with about 0.20US a day, to eat, study, get health, and play. me myself, I speak about 11 languages, and can do quite a lot of stuff and I earn about 70US a month, to do everything I need, that includes food, health, internet, books, and the rest. but my childhood was way beyond the misery level. I had toys, and books, I travelled, I studied, I had health, food, tv, video games, and the rest. I was helped to think, and was taught by my parents, and teachers, I was taken care of, I am white, and do not have indians or black traces, both my parents finished university, and I spent my teenage life reading and going out like a normal kid, I was not into prostitution, and drugs, and was kept away, the same that my friends were, from people like the ones I was talking about, cause they were considered harmful and disgraceful.
: but those other did exist, and they are our majority, they do rule, and nowadays most of the political decitions are related to their "wealth" and their social situation.
: It is not about being able to think, we all have brains, it is about the grounds you have been placed, your starting point, how much you have exerciced your head, how many things you have done and have been done for you in order to make your intellect grow.
Indira, I would not dream of saying that what you've shared is wrong. We are not saying opposite things. We are simply saying the same thing from a different angle. I'm convinced of that. You have just said that its not about whether or not you think, but the environment you are raised in --the opportunity you are given to think and grow your intellect.

This does not preclude men and women from having very different ways of thinking based on their genetics and physiology. The system of poverty you describe --those people are victims of a particular way of waging culture. That way of waging culture was devised and prosecuted over millenia by a male power structure. It is a male-designed cultural model. Can you not admit the thought that maybe if women were "in charge" society would not look like this?

I have been trying to say that men and women tend to have different ideas, think of things differently. the way men think has lead to the world we live in now. The way men think has led to the way we think of Philosophy. Becasue the establishment conception of Philosophy is male-oriented, wome ndo not tend to practice it. . .in the established way. They have their own ways. Some of those ways and women come to light, others do not. The majority do not because the system that recognized and celebrates people and their achievements is also part of this cultural structure which is male in origin and in aspect.

That';s for those who do think, who do have developed intellects. The rest, who do not have the opportunities to devlop their minds, do not enter into this discussion of male thought patterns vs. female thought patterns. They are a separate subject. Or maybe in your mind they are not, but I would bet that the reason I don't see it has something to do with --among other things-- my gender. I read you talk about poverty and, frankly, I wonder why you are talking about poverty. It doesn't enter into my arguments. I am trying to argue that my arguments differ because of factual differences in our thought patterns.

: Imagine a society where, instead of thinking about women as housewives, most women are maid, working for 1.5 US the hour, in the luckiest cases, and doing some other darker jobs during the rest of the day, to survive.
: Imagine a society where most men are construction workers, and most women are maids. they have almost no knowledge, they can add and write down milk and bread to go to the supermarket, and they buy their food at the same place I buy meat for my dog.
: Imagine a society where kids are on their own, with no rules, no background, they eat from the garbage, and their learning is about stealing, shooting, and getting stoned. and to finish the painting, insert there a ton of chauvinism, with a civil code that still consider women as an article, and with only a couple of laws to protect them from agression.
: Now, why don't you name there the countless possibilities of thought and decision making a woman has to survive here?
: I know of societies that have a higher degree of evolution, where men and women are alike, both work, both earn their fair income, both study at university, both have the same opportunities, but if you put all the globe together, what is the percentage of women/societies living under those conditions?
: Is there anyone to blame? yes, there is. there have been a lot of prefab governments, who have done everything to keep the population like this. for what?
: do u think that we need to have the marines in the triple border here, doing..what?
: do you think that I like watching the way our territory is being literally sold to foreigner business and governments, and that someone can decide that we will hold a nuclear garbage because we owe money, or because no one here stops them? do you think that the 50 percent of our population living in poverty cares? cares about what, they don't even know what's going on!
: that all that we've lost in the last 50 years, is buried in the sea, or maybe went somewhere else? No way I can think that social movements, and social activies are just a matter of chance. example: 1978 we had the militar dictatorship that killed about 30000 people, destroyed the economy, asked for money to the international organisms, and was actually HANDLED the money, when it was widely known that they were violating argentinian constitution, commiting every kind of crime, and the money was not to be used to do anything but their pockets. there was the football world cup. we were selected to hold it, and the money went straight to build stadiums and that sort of useless shit. the world cup was used to display government propaganda, stickers, and to avoid the united nations and the human rights organizations to inspect the country. we had to win the cup. we played against peru. one of peru players was argentininan. he let our team make 6 goals, and we won.
: do u think that was chance? no, no, it wasn't. it wasn't chance that let a government like that take place in a country like this, openly supported by USA, the same as in chile with pinochet, to play the cold war outside of US borders, with US citizens safe from the murders, the social disorder, and the economic disaster. US govmnt knw what was going on, here, and in every other country in latin america, and they supported it. they also supported the war we held against the british (LMAO) they supported and said they were on our side while they were handling guns to the british gvmnt, and spyware. but that kept a million people in front of the presidency, asking galtieri to go on with the war because it was our territory, our nation. a day before, no one knew where the islands were, and that they theoretically had belonged to us during the 19th century. that kept the gvmnt rulling for months, and the people gave their jewels to support it.
: meanwhile, 18 yrs old kids were starving in the south, because the provisions had been stolen or were never sent. to hear the news, we heard radio colonia, from uruguay, that while radios here were saying we were winning, they said we had lost.
: all this not to mention the USSR interventions in latin america, that were as harmful as the US ones. not to mention the amount of people who died for a cause that was lost already, and that did not belong to us. for all the youngsters that were tricked into joining the communist party, to get a girl, and a joint, and were send to put a package, or blow off a car, for the sake of it. not to mention the shame that was put into an entire generation, who are now 40-45, who lost their youth, their freedom, who were banned from listening to almost every kind of music, readin, learning..
: I could never think that a person who keeps another person under torment and slavery, is unconscious of the suffering and the consequences, why would I think society is just a gamble, and that we have no power just because we have no money, or simple things like that? I live here, and we all do, under the impotence of not being able to change things. everytime we do something, someone comes, and asks for money, political adherence, or whatever. every social work we have done, it has been almost in vain, and it has been betrayed by the government. should I think that's pure coincidence? was everything a coincidence? I am not saying that there is only one power. there are many, and they do fight for supremacy, but they don't gable with it, that's for sure.
: if it was convenient for society, to keep women in the dark, and if it's still convenient to keep them like that in places like here, that's not just a coincidence, women do still play a role in educating their children, and if what you have is uneducated women, well, our future generations here are less than promising.
: have I lost the subject somewhere?
: probably, yes.
Indira, again, I do not want to devalue what you've said. It obviously comes from compassion and well-developed thoughts. But as far as the point I've made that you are responding to, let's look not just at the instances. Let's look at the patterns of this system, the fundamental features, and try to determine what sort of people propagate this system, what their motives are. My argument is that the world is the way it is because of thoughts that people have had. I identify those peope are primarily male and hypothjesize that the patterns of the society they create contain artifacts of the very way these men think. The plight of your country is horrible. But what does it have to do with whether men and women's brains work differently? (Oh, tht sounded harsh and insensitive. No way around it, I guess.)

: going on:

: Spratley: "Men have been in control of our culture for all but the last 100 years or so. The current forms of government, the current institutions, the shape of the culture itself was affected mostly by men. Thus, the culture favors "male" values. Thus, women that are highly visible within the culture will tend to exhibit cvalues favored by the culture."

: Indira: yes, maybe. I have always longed for some sort of gray scale, with no obvious disctincion between the two. I don't think that our way of thinking is different. what I was saying about feminism, is exactly what you're saying, it is a failure from the start, but it has opened many doors that were closed and forbidden for us.
But the doors that opened opened up onto male-ness, whic hdoesn;t really help much. I think the grey scale can be achieved by removing one cultural principle --the most fundamental of fundamental: Go to a tribe on some Pacific Island and describe for the tribe the traditions of another tribe. The tradition varies severely from theres. Now ask the tribe if the othr tribe is wrong. They won;t be able to make sens eof your question. But in civilized culture the question makes immediate sense --should that tribe act that way? Would it be better for them to bvbe another way. This culture we live in operats undera "I'm right, you're wrong policy." It is for this reason that so called female ideas don;t carry weight --becasue they are different than the status quo, and the status quo is right (or else why would it be the status quo) and therefoer the female idea is wrong and should not be listened to. Take that absolute dogmatism out, allow other ideas to be right as well as one's own, and he world will change. Now, how to do it is another question.

: still every movement that promotes just one side of the story, feminism, comunis, capitalism, etc, are either a failure or a plan. there's a book called CIA and cultural movements during the cold war. Interesting to see the shape the cold war took, and the amount of apparently independent ideas that were prefab. for the sake of ideological transmission.
Yes, that's why I think the established conception of Philosophy is foolish --it only recognizes one kind of truth and discounts all others. Same with the Cold War. When USSR "lost" the war, Russian went to capitalism, and this seemed natural to everyone, as if, "Of course they did!" The cold war was two ideologies fighting for rightness, and when the US "won, "Their ideology was declared "right." When in fact it was merely the best ideology for winning a cold war, yet leaves much to be desird on other fronts.

: sad also to find out how many free and independent intellectuals were at hand for both sides to use and reuse them, and how many voices were raised for freedom, when they were actually supporting a closed system.

: Spratley: "If you agree that women can think in ways that men cannot, or can have emotions that men cannot, then there is no reason to disagree with me now."

: Indira: No, I don't agree :)
: I think they are raised to think one way or the other, women are given barbie, boys are given cars, women wear dresses, boys don't, women wear pink, boys blue, the problem is when someone is misplaced. I was given cars and music, and I debated through years and years about what I was. According to society, I was somewhere between the two places. I cut my hair short, and wore strange clothes, what the fuck is that, a man or a woman? what the fuck I was, I didn't know, I don't know sometimes, I don't like women, don't want to be like they are here, don't want to talk like that, or feel like that, I go to places women don't go, and my friends excuse themselves saying Indira is like another man, that's why we take her there. I asked a friend four days ago if that was true, he said no, but again, I don't know. Finding my own "feminine" identity among a bunch of girls wearing nice clothes and having nice husbands, kids, and kitchens, has been a pain in the ass. I have felt as an outsider, not because of any particular idea, but because of the fact that I am female. Did it happen to me only? no, it didn't. every woman struggles against this, if she wants to do something out of her life besides raising kids or being a secretary, or a waitress.
In the argument of nature vs. nurture, the answer that most commonly comes up these days is, "Each affects the other." In other words, why do parent's steer their children like they do? One answer leads us back generation by generation, as if each generation just did waht society told them to do. Another answer is that something inside of these people leads them to raise their children the way they do. Naming it society and denying that it anything isnde the individual, something hardwired. . . I think that's intellectually irresponsible. People do what it seems natural for them to do --and while we're on it, I have heard of "experiments" where little girls do girlie things without any prompting.

I may be getting into too personal an area. BUt You have said i publicon this board that you are having some emotional crises. Has it occurred to you that these crises and your gender identity are linked? That the areas where you don't exhibit "feminine" qualities are the same aras that are causing your angst? Just wanted to suggest it.

: We do have to accomodate to men's ambitions, and have to find our path in the middle of their confusion. I don't know, and I don't think that men and women have different values, they are mostly raised to have them, by both their parents, one male, and one female, most of the times, by school, church, club, society.
There were two "mosts" in there. Mostly raised, most of the time. Why won't you let those exceptions into your ideology? I don;t want to sound crass, but it makes me think that you are being dogmatic --irrationally loyal to your personal beleif, even though my belief, the one that fits in where the mostly falls short, has definite value as well. It makes me wonder what experiences in your life lead you to be resistant to thinking that anything can be geneticaly different about men and women.

: we are expected to be overemotional, reactive and mindless, when we speak, when we drive (oh my god the things they say when we fucking drive!) etc. that's a question of culture, not about physiological traits.
That is female behavior and thought paterns filtered through male one. . . more evidence, I beleive, that men and women think differently. The male witnesses the female way of thinking, aplies what he sees to his own male thought patterns, and spits out what you have stated above. But I think women think in ways which we can trace backward to the male adulteration of, but not exactly characterixable as men have done it. Know what I mean?

: Spratley:"I am not talking about something attached to the genitals, but rather simple gender-based trends. Commonality."

: Indira: Like what? body size, physical strenght?
Like the thought patterns onedevelops from being of a slighter stature. The human brain starts out with a finite number of cells, and then it commences to form connections. Empirically speaking, every experience detemines how the cells connect. Bt I also think that women's brains tend towards diferent algorithms of connection. IT is often said that men have better spetio-temporal imaging talents than women. I am not supposeing that this is the only way to label this difference, but I do suppose that it is a real difference. Same with this talk of linear and circular thinking that you dislike. You don't have to think of it in a way you don't like, but I think it represents a real difference. I think that over the eons of evolution, females have become designed differently than men, for different purposes, for representing different apsects of the universe, etc.

: Spratley: "Men feel a need to be right, to be obeyed, to get to the bottom of things, to have their solution be final and binding. Women work less linearly ON AVERAGE, less finally, less status-oriented-ly. "

: Indira: is that because of the physical differences, or because of the education? hasn't there been a progression in opression, that cooled down in the last centrury but lasted like 3000 years?
: was it like that at the beginning?
: are the differences physiological or cultural? I think they are cultural. A woman can be as strong as a man, except while she is pregnant, and she is pregnant about twice, three times, four times, in her life, that's not most of the time.
I am saying that the physical, the envirommental, the socializing factors are all interdependent. Its not one of the other or a couple. They are all the same thing because they all bleed into one another and have cross-causes and corss-effects. You say the differences are cultural, not physiological. I say that the cultural is a reflection of the physiological. That the cultral wouldn;t be the way it is if it weren;t for the physiological. And a lot of the physiological wouldn;t be the way it is if it weren;t for the cultural. Think of it this way --our culture favors people who can think scientifically and technolgically and capitalistically. Therefoer, over time, there will be a greater representation of scientific, technology, capitalistic minded peopl around, which will in turn make culture more scientific, technological, capitalist becaus these peopl like to think that the way they are is the way everyone shouldbe.

: Spratley: "Instead it says, "Men favored qualities in themselves which led to the oppression of women --who didn't favor or possess the qualities necessary to stick up to men."

: Indira: I think it says, a group of people did whatever they pleased because they had societal permission to do it, and the other group waited for centuries until it could get out of the situation preserving some dignity.
Society isn;t a thingthat didn;t exist, then it did. HUmanity isn;t a thing that didn;texist, then did. It develops gradually. So what cause resulted in society effecting the way people behave, if there was no society before that cuase? PLease, lets blur the boundary between material and spiritual, genetics and culture. They're all likeparted and in each other's images. They are all the same thing.

: Spratley: "Why are we disagreeing!? hilosophy not being the most important way out, since it was made and preserved by men." Why did men make it? Because they are predisposed to behave in certain ways --ways reflected in their products."

: Indira: We're disagreeing because women have been and are able to do everything a man does if she is given the same, or almost the same opportunities he's been given, and the same social recognition for the same achievements. predisposition is for me out of question. it's about opportunities, and treatment, and scale.
Can I say something that will invariably be heard as chauvanistic by you? I have to say it anyway. Why is is that every time someone --usually a man-- says that women are different than men, a feminist --usually a womna-- says that women can do anything that a man can do given an equal chance. One, why the hell does different have to be heard as lesser by the feminist, and Two, let's see a woman strike out 20 in a nine inning basebal game against Major League baseball players. Let's see a woman --given all the opprotunity she wants-- drive the lane and dunk over Shaquille O'Neal. Men and the civilized culteur they invented have convinced you that to be different than the power-holders is to be lesser. Different in no way connotes inferiority unless you allow it to.

: you're saying something like, women have kids in their wombs because they are phyically able to while me do philosophy.
: excuse me, but it sounds like that even if it's not what you mean.
You trust that I am intelligent, right? You may not agree with me, but you know I'm a fair dinkum thinkum, right? Why on earth would I imply that a woman's bodily capability compares with a man's intellectual capability? I'm saying that men are the only poor bastards that care about stringing together logical explosions to create invulnerable, impervious proof. I beleive that a woman sufficiently removed from civilized culture and put in observation of such a man would laugh her tits off at how foolish he is. Why? Because the way her mind works, such aggressive, bellicose idea manipulation is foolish!

It may sound like I was saying what you suggested. But that sound occurs i your ears, so it sounds like that TO YOU. . . and those two words imply that you are performing thoughts on what I said. Where do those thoughts come from? This is what I mean --reality is colored by our minds! Women have different minds than men! Women view reality differently than men in general!

: there are physical differences, but psychological differences, I don't think so. Also, it is interesting to see that when freud developed his theory, he found a way out of oedipus complex.. FOR MEN!! women, well, hmm.. they just don't get out of it!
is that somehow related to ortodox jewish culture, and to some ortodox christian culture, and to some islamic tendence, or what?
It is related to something prior to and more fundamental than orthodox Judaism and Islam. Judaism and Islam are products of this "it."

: is it true??
: I don't know..I think it's missing (willingly) the point

: Spratley: "Imagine: On a planet there are only men. "

: Indira: on this planet there have always been both sexes.
Give me a break, its caled an intuition engine. a metaphor in which the terms do not refer to what they are but to something else. You're suppose to IMAGINE.

: Spratley: "These men build prisons. Because all they know are men, they design the prison to house men. "

: Indira: no, they were designed to house men, because women were not free to be criminals.
Women didn;t exist on this planet. Its a metaphor for howall men know about thought is male thouht. Therefore they produce things according to male thoughts. Thus the produce are male.

: Sratley: "One day they find a woman who's space ship has crashed on the planet."

: Indira: I know you usually have a bad temper, but can I laugh at this one for a second without you geting angry?
Sure, if you're laughing at the whimsy of the example. . .I agree, it is a silly image.

: Spratley:" They try to reason with her in the only way they know how. But she just doesn't seem to respond to it, she doesn't seem to make sense of it."

: Indira: erfan says: why don't women want to argue philosophy with me. I give him some answer, probably not THE answer, but an attempt. erfan says "" nothing, zip, nada.
: maybe the attempts of reasoning with her were not real attepmts? maybe she did speak, and no one listened? maybe the ones who were talking were prison guards with a gun and a boot instead of a brain?
Exactly. He's talking male, they're talking female. They both leave unsatisfied.

: Spratley: "Have I made sense? "

: Indira: yes, you have. can I get out of prison now? :)
It depends. Are you going to try to do it the male way? If so, no, you'll never bend the bars.

: Spratley: "Their predispositions are what they are because of the conditions they grew up in."...."The only reason male produce rules is because somewhere along the line they found themselves in conditions which predisposed them to aggression and dominance. That some of those conditions were already existing cultural norms put down by previous male-types makes no difference"

: Indira: I think that is totally wrong. If you go to amsterdam, you can smoke hash on the streets, at a cafe, at home, you can buy it, enjoy it, give it to your friends, etc. If I go to other place, let's say, buenos aires, I cannot smoke on the street, or if I do it, I know I'm breaking the rules, and if I get caught, I'm in trouble. the fact that I decide to break the rules, and sistematically challenge the system to catch me or not, is not a minor trace in me. that we follow or not the rules we have been handled, by previous males and females, is not just a detail, but the core of the matter. wether we have been trained to react, or to obbey, it is there that we can find a way out or build another, thicker wall. we have been taught, we are not by ourselves.
: Indira
Amsterdam may not have a rule against smoking marijuana, but it is still a rule based society. The difference in rules between Amsterdam and B.A. is not significant to my discussion.

Follow Ups:

Post a Followup

Optional Link
Optional Image Link

thecry!!! existentialism