The femininist face of war: - By Samuel Poole

The femininist face of war:

It is a truth universally acknowledged that war is just for men, what? I mean, those delicate ladies know their role(s) in a man’s war – as nurses, tending the sick and holding the hands of our boys in their dying moments, or as letter writing romantic sweethearts, raising the morale of the troops.

Whilst the antecedent paragraph was highly patriarchal, and, of course, tongue in cheek, I do wonder how the feminist movement can rectify their conflicting attitudes towards armed conflict: that a) war is a social construct of a patriarchal society and b) a woman should have equality of opportunity in any career she chooses…but does this logic even continue to allow women to be cannon fodder? How can we square that circle?

As the previous question suggests, the two positions contradict each other to such an extent that one cannot have it both ways. You’re either a feminist that supports militarisation or a feminist who doesn’t. It seems, at least to me, that if a feminist supports war per se, then she isn’t a truly moral person, nor is she really a feminist. And that’s the issue, isn’t it? You have to fight, even when invading oil rich nations don’t have words of mass distraction, sorry, I meant weapons of mass destruction. That’s why I couldn’t be a soldier. I could, and would, enlist if I felt the war had a true moral cause.

Nevertheless, whatever the case, “liberal” feminists certainly support women in the military. Erin Solaro makes her opinions on matters military quite clear:

“I am an overt and unabashed feminist: I believe women have the same civic and human worth men do. Part of that worth is the right – and the responsibility – to bear arms in the common defense…we – women – liver her too, and we are equal in all things, not just the good in society.”

I was going to go elsewhere with this humble essay. Yet – yet! – that last line resonates with me. And it should resonate with you, too.  That last line! I repeat: “Not just the good in society”. Is Solaro implying that the armed forces don’t represent the “good” in society? And this is coming from an unabashed feminist. Is she saying that women have an equal right to make a chaos of this world? This statement invalidates the (supposedly) more extreme feminists’ claim that war is a patriarchal – and patriarchal only -- construct.

Luckily enough, I spoke to a female naval officer at the philosophy stall. She, and her male counterparts, believed that the issue of gender was not important. They stated that an individual has merits and that these merits were not dependent on gender. And as 15% of the armed forces in the UK are female, can feminists claim that all of them are victims of patriarchal conditioning?

Undoubtedly, there have been female warriors. I assume images of Joan of Arc, Boadicea and Lyudmila Pavlichenko, the ultimate Russian femme fatale, come to mind.  I do, however, think, quite sincerely, they are famous because they buck the trend. If something is an exception to a rule, which very much determines that there is a “rule”, albeit a socially constructed one, about gender roles and the military. Except it’s not really a “rule”, is it?

Well, it is and it isn’t. Women have the opportunity to join the armed services, but they don’t have the opportunity to fight on the front line, at least in the United Kingdom.  This is a clear instance of social conditioning determining law, yet again. But can we blame our Judeo-Christian moral background? Not if modern day Occupied Palestine (Israel is a state I refuse to recognise) is anything to judge by.

Occupied Palestine is under such a threat that women have to be considered for military service. Any notions of women being stereotyped as delicate flowers are rejected by sheer necessity – although female soldiers are objectified, so it seems women can never win.

And that is the issue here, isn’t it? Women are so judged by society, even most post-enlightenment, western societies, that whatever they do, they will face discrimination.  They – female soldiers -- have to deal with stereotyping, such as that they are lesbian bitches with penis envy, clearly trying to overcompensate for not have the raw penis-toting machismo of a man, whilst they can’t conform to their Barbie and Ken, all things pink, career sacrificing, heterosexual, child-bearing sisters.

I must admit that I’m a man of strong convictions. I’ve certainly been described as arrogant and macho, even rude at times. These characteristics are synonymous with young, immature males.  As a result, I’m used to writing strongly worded polemics, that are excellently written (I did mention I was arrogant) and organised.

This topic, however, is quite staggering. It’s so very, very broad and I really have opened not one, but many, cliché cans of worms. There’s so much to cover. I feel I’ve been tangential, but that wasn’t my objective. I just want to this topic justice, which I can’t in under one thousand words.

Nonetheless, if there is a so-called conclusion to this tumultuous mish mash of an essay, here it is: whilst I’m anti-war and proud of it, I genuinely empathise with females in the armed forces. Society judges them unfairly, and they draw criticism from chauvinists and feminists alike. But what’s worse is that they’re mostly judged by the mindless mainstream for not conforming to archaic gender roles.  So whilst I’m dangerously befuddled by this issue, I’m going to have to leave you, as Levitch would say, dancing with my confusion, but quite proud to do so.

By Samuel Poole

The Philosophy Takeaway 'War' Issue 28

A short dialogue between Socrates and Coros on the nature of war - By Selim 'Selim' Talat

A short dialogue between Socrates and Coros on the nature of war

Oh Socrates, I do hear the horns of war a'sounding. Is it true? Will we soon be caught up in the violent ambitions of powerful men?

I fear so, dear Coros.

And now we lament our impending doom, oh dearest of philosophers. But say, how did we arrive at this sorrowful point? What was the root cause of this invasion?

It could have been many things: Our enemy may have been tricked into thinking us a threat (led by our 'mad tyrant') and thus launched an invasion to defend against our invisible armies - the paranoid fools!

  Or perhaps the desires of their people are so great that they grow outwards like an infinite weed, forever seeking to take more and more resources to fuel their greedy machine.

  I suppose it could be tradition or religious motivation; a way of finding purpose in life by submitting to powerful military authority; and it does give all of those soldiers something to do. If they were all on the bread line, it would cause utter chaos.

  I imagine it is a mixture of these things, and perhaps more things I have left out in my foolishness; for I do after all know nothing of anything!

Ha, all plausible explanations my modest Socrates. Before we are called to fight for our very survival, do you have any advice on stopping future invasions?

Fortunately for us friends of reason, I do. The first, is to have more spears and shields than your enemy! Or failing that, lots of spears and shields and plenty of allies; this way it will be far too much of a hassle for them to conquer us and they will go for the next weakest prey.

  The second, is for us to travel into the heart of their greatest cities and convince them that their expansionist lifestyle is morally wrong, and that all of the art, technology, architecture, literature, and all of those other things they create by exploiting and destroying other people, should be done away with for a simpler pastoral life, free from desire altogether.

Oh come off it Socrates, such a utopian vision is impossible to create! Fancy that, humans roaming around like cows. Such a state is regression surely?

A peaceful regression all the same! I suppose we could change the values of the city-states, to divert our natural desires for growth in a different direction, guided by powerful philosopher kings.

Ah, so the young lad will no longer wish to join the cavalry as a fledgling Achilles, but wander the market place in search for reason - a fledgling Socrates!

Yes, something like that Coros, although no one ought to mirror a sad old codger such as myself; I should not like to inspire a generation of fools.

But of course not Socrates. Ah yes, if only we could channel our insatiable desires in such a way that did not destroy so much around us.

Aye old friend, yet this is no time for woeful lament.

Indeed, let us ready our weapons and prepare for battle.

So long as no student of history, staring back across the annals of time, thinks this battle to be a case of honoured contest between two armies of equals, then I shall be happy to play my part in our doomed defence.

By Selim 'Selim' Talat

The Philosophy Takeaway 'War' Issue 28

Art by Eliza Veretilo

This weeks artist was Eliza Veretilo - http://neonsuitcase.blogspot.co.uk/
The Philosophy Takeaway 'Animals' Issue 27

Ethical Consistency - By Selim 'Selim' Talat

Ethical Consistency

The time will come when humanity will extend its mantle over everything which breathes... ' - Jeremy Bentham

By what means do we apply natural inalienable rights, or an ethics that counts the greatest happiness for the greatest number, or an ethics that says we must not treat people as means but as ends, and so on, to human beings?

  Do we consider human life to be valueable because it is the most intelligent and capable of reason. If we do, then this must mean we attribute more value to the more intelligent among us (by whatever criteria we choose to measure it). Where does this leave children, or those mentally handicapped, or those disadvantaged - beneath consideration?

No, it seems that intelligence alone is not enough to grant something 'rights', or the measure to be considered valueable.

  Do we then consider human life to be valueable because of the magic of revealed religious teachings. Again, we have to say no, as not all of us hold such religious views and the cause of human rights is championed by secular (non-religious) philosophy.

  Do we then consider human life to be valueable because it is sentient (consciously aware), and thus has the capacity to be free, but only when it is not in a state of suffering.   

  This generalization seems to have more potency than the others, and leaves very few people outside of its mantle (only those who threaten the freedom and well being of others are themselves at risk).

It would be a fair generalization to suggest that most human beings in a stable and peaceful environment, looking in from the outside at a massacre, or a distant war, would be sickened by the images and eye witness reports. Further, regarding the more directly observable violence we find inside our own familiar boundaries, who would not be disgusted by such atrocity?

Evidently, most of us!

For if I may be so provocative, whilst it is reassuring that we do not tolerate mass suffering of our fellow humans, we seem all too willing to turn a blind eye to the suffering of animals; we incorporate their slaughter into the most pleasant and polite of our routines: 'Would you care for another slice of animal Lionel?' is not something you are likely to hear at a dinner table, instead 'meat' shall be used as the appropriate euphemism, but as you can see, the violent acquisition of food is engrained in our everyday lives.

If we do subscribe to the ethics of 'That which can suffer, should not suffer needlessly' and 'Do as you will, so long as you harm none', then this should be an ethical position consistently held. Why should an animal be made exempt from our consideration? If anything, the amount of animal suffering, if measured numerically, is now greater than ever before, to the factor of millions of animals raised in ever-worsening conditions, for the whole of their short and brutish lives.

We could separate ourselves from the world of animals, or place ourselves at the peak of some vast food chain. This is normally the knee-jerk reaction of the religious; that some divine entity has given us dominion of the earth and created the beasts that we might devour their succulent flesh. 

  On a more philosophical note, Descartes is often criticised for reducing the animal to little more than a flesh-machine, incapable of reason, or possessing any form of 'soul'; primarily on account of its lack of language. This is another means of dispossessing the animal of any ethical considerations.

Yet surely if we admit but one animal into our sphere of consideration; if we call but one animal conscious (in a way at least somewhat similar to our own human consciousness) then suddenly a large swathe of creatures in the animal kingdom gain at least some measure of worth; for no longer are we strictly dividing life into human and non-human.

  The elephant's brain has as many neurons in its cortex as does a human brain. Whatever we have that makes our suffering 'real', must surely also be in the elephant. And if in the elephant, why not the chicken, the cat, the dog, or anything which we can actively recognise as having similar components to ourselves? How can we dismiss the entire life of an animal as being a simple case of reacting to stimulus, when there is at least some capacity for an animal to learn, to recognise individuality, to recognise itself, and most compellingly to suffer.

If we rose out of nature ourselves, then by the basest logic, are we not simply the furthest reach of consciousness thus created by nature, trailed by our ape cousins and all others? How is the human body transcendent (beyond the mundane) if it is related to, and at one time had ancestors no more complex than the great ape!

  What we do have is the advantage of intelligence and creativity, that allows us to create technologies, ethical values, and so on. If these values hold that violence in nature is something beneath us; the province of starving predators or a last resort  to survive, then why not dispense with the behaviour altogether. Energy can more efficiently be grown and absorbed from plant life, and all without treading on anyone's hooves.

It would be a foolish person indeed to place all life on an equal footing, doubly so if we allocate our hearts love to smallpox bacteria, common garden weeds, fleas and such like. Human beings are the greatest of all life thus discovered, and perhaps the most powerful entity in the universe itself. Yet considering the fact that we can now slowly adjust our means to survive and thrive without causing unnecessary harm what arguments can be presented against the animal ethics position?

By Selim 'Selim' Talat

The Philosophy Takeaway 'Animals' Issue 27

Peter Singer: - By Samuel Mack-Poole

Would you like (relative) infanticide with (relative) bestiality? An insight into the morality of Peter Singer:

Since Peter Singer’s controversial interview with Richard Dawkins, his prominence amongst the global intelligentsia is on the rise. He has been lauded by Dawkins as the “most moral man” he knows. This, obviously, is quite an endorsement from one of the world’s most publicity hungry scientists. But, as philosophers, we should question Singer’s arguments. It is our duty to do so. For if we don’t, the dogmatists will. And we all know how easy it is to argue with a dogmatist…

One of Peter Singer’s more controversial arguments (to the non-scientifically minded) is that we are not special just through the virtue of belonging to the species Homo sapien sapien (please note that we are a species of a common ancestor Homo sapien within two sub-species; our evolutionary cousin being Homo sapien neanderthalensis).

It is a scientific fact that we are animals. That is not in doubt. However, what we should question is: how are we unique or ‘special’? Singer has said in an interview, which is on YouTube, that humans have an ability to see their lives in a “biographical sense”. Humans can remember the past and plan for the future to a greater extent than any other species. He also states that humans “admittedly have capacities to reason and use language that exceeds any non-human animal.”

Despite this, Singer argues, quite truthfully, that not all humans have this ability. New-born infants don’t, and whilst I don’t want to broaden this debate too much, an embryo certainly doesn’t. Personally, I think Singer’s arguments regarding new-born infants are flawed. According to a Kant’s Doctrine of Right:

“Due to the congenital nature of life per se, every parent is morally obligated to care for their child until they are able to care for themselves. As a child has no ability to consent to be born, it is the moral duty and obligation to provide care and sustenance for their child.”

This, to me, highlights a moral case for every, and any, parent taking responsibly for their child – even in the case of disability. Singer rejects this argument, quite simply, because he does not think all human life is worth saving. He peremptorily rejects traditional and conservative moral values -- which isn’t necessarily a bad thing -- by claiming only life that is fully aware, sentient and has consciousness worthy of being regarded as a person.

In his own words, Singer has stated:

“I use the term "person" to refer to a being who (sic) is capable of anticipating the future, of having wants and desires for the future.”

Not only is this grammatically incorrect, but this is a very narrow way of valuing human species.  Furthermore, this acute argument leaves Singer wide open to a very slippery slope – almost a forty-five degree glacier. If a new born baby, which can survive independent of its biological mother, doesn’t meet Singer’s highly subjective criteria, does a one year old child? What about a toddler that is not capable of speech, but who can think of plans? How “new” is new-born? It would be unfair, however, not to mention biased, of me to misrepresent Singer.

He only advocates infanticide when the parents and doctors have agreed it is in the best interests of the child – in the case of extremely severe disability. He is very careful to be relative – for morality can only be applied to special circumstances. He, in no way, shape or form, advocates the, dare I say it, bestial butchering of hundreds of healthy new-borns.

 This, naturally, leads very nicely onto Singer’s views on bestiality. He doesn’t blindly believe that any sexual activity with an animal is “wrong” per se. In no way is sexual behaviour with animals a social norm – unless you are a young male from a rural area (you can look at Kinsey’s statistics for yourself) -- yet it is true that since the dawn of man, members of our species have chosen to interact sexually with non-human animals. As there are biblical statutes on the matter, it is quite clear a law was created to stop humans doing something that the majority did not.

However, a biblical approach to life is not (actively) followed by most in modern Britain. The majority of men are Onanists; we are, for the most, a liberal and accepting society. Sodomy, homosexuality -- amongst both genders -- can be practiced openly. As this is the case, why is sex with animals deemed “immoral” and illegal?

Singer has written an article called Heavy Petting in which he outlines his views on Zoophilia – after all, bestiality has such a bad name.  It is implied that Singer is a consequentialist (someone who believes the consequence(s) of one's action determines its moral value) and that he does not take a strictly rights-based approach to ethical issues. 

The following quote will illustrate Singer’s position:

“Sex with animals does not always involve cruelty.”

If both parties experience “mutually satisfying activities” of a sexual nature, Singer does not think the act is inherently immoral. However, Singer conveniently ignores the glaringly obvious, almost neon white, elephant in the room: consent! Tom Regan, a fellow philosopher, correctly states that the same argument can be used to validate a paedophile’s lust for children. If the logic is not sound in all contexts, the argument is invalid – isn’t it?

For some reason, my moral compass is not offended by the thought of a woman riding naked on a horse, and reaching orgasm as a result – but I am offended by the thought of a man fucking a sheep. I have to be honest, and admit to my moral hypocrisy; I have to work on my contradictions. In the end, I guess, I have to admit that I’m only (a) human (animal).

By Samuel Mack-Poole

The Philosophy Takeaway 'Animals' Issue 27

Animals cannot be capitalist, but can they be socialist? - By Martin Prior

Animals cannot be capitalist, but can they be socialist?

 

 

Before starting up this discussion, I must say that my factual awareness about animal behaviour is strictly limited.  We know about Washoe, the chimpanzee that learnt American Sign Language: http://www.pbs.org/wnet/nature/episodes/my-life-as-a-turkey/joe-hutto-answers-your-questions/7389/, and about Joe Hutto, who learnt wild turkey language: http://www.pbs.org/wnet/nature/episodes/my-life-as-a-turkey/joe-hutto-answers-your-questions/7389/ .

Once, when I was visiting a friend in a country which was then in the Soviet bloc, we saw some ants, and I said that ants were communist, but had solved the supply problem.

 

But if we consider socialism to be about ownership and property, then we might say that territorial animals are not socialist.  But what about cats?  Their instinct tells them that if you are their ‘master’ (though probably vice versa), part of their instinct tells them to share their mouse with you.  So that in terms of their immobile property they are capitalist, but in terms of mobile property they are socialist.

 

Or perhaps among some animals, the leader of the pack effectively owns the females: a form of state capitalism?

 

But perhaps socialism, when expressed in terms of property, is not a final definition.  Perhaps property can be used in a socialistic way.  My own view of socialism is that of “sharing equally the burdens imposed by the limitations of the natural environment”, illustrated in the diagram shown below on the left.  Then ownership comes in when it is a means by which the rich get richer and the poor poorer.

But then I have argued in these issues that this process of creating equality must be broken down, part integrated with custom, and part by processes of investigation that transcend custom.  This is illustrated on the right, from an article I wrote for Issue 22. Skills become critical here.

 

 

“share equally the burdens imposed by the limitations of the natural environment”

(i.e. equal wind pressure on each square inch of sail)

processes in equality

The two areas of maroon represent the effects of customs and culture, but the intervening pink represents skills and ideas which may actively evolve.  Now this active intervention is something we might find difficult to identify in animals, where for non-creationists at least, the evolution is not directed..
 

I once heard that experiments on rats in overcrowded conditions were viable provided the space was shared fairly.   From a brief google I find the work of John B. Calhoun (1917-95), who found that up to a point the rats would organise themselves into packs of around twelve, but then serious behavioural problems occurred when crowding was further intensified, leading to diminished birth-rates which could lead to the extinction of the community even when numbers were sufficiently reduced.

So rats and probably other species cannot be explicitly socialist: nor do they invent the concept for themselves.  But if capitalism leads to a kind of cancer which gets out of control, then it cannot necessarily be repaired of its own accord.                                       

By Martin Prior

 
The Philosophy Takeaway 'Animals' Issue 27

Art - By Harry Wareham

By - Harry Wareham

The Philosophy Takeaway 'Gender' Issue 26

For Mary: 15-50 - By Siobhon Wilson

For Mary: 15-50

15.

Grown. Taut.

Started but not yet begun.

Buds of sexuality pucker,

Unknowing what they held inside.

Eyes down, bitten lip.

An unfurnished room.

20.

Ibiza. Him.

Begun but not yet created.

Sex.

Known but not owned.

She is for sale.

Eye contact. Wide smile.

Playing at Four becomes foreplay.

He.

Shiny and new.

Owned but not known.

30.

Baby. Nothing But.

Created but not yet realised.

Sexuality is replaced with Mothercare.

She is owned and she has produced.

Tired eyes, sighing mouth.

Her = Child.

Le petit mort.

A shrunken room

Littered with debris of the past

Home to the little cot.

40.

Ten years un-needed.

Discarded but not fully released.

Sexuality is reconstructed in old, betraying photographs.

Flowers wilt in dry soil, only half-opened.

Eyes worn, time-wrinkled frown.

Identity is unknown to all who occupy.

50.

Grown. Sagged.

Started but not yet begun.

The stretching of time leaves marks on her body.

The perennials turn to seed,

Desaturated, the negative of colour.

Eyes down, bitten lip.

She leaves.

An unfurnished room:

She opens a window and

Breathes in air.

 

By Siobhon WilsonThe Philosophy Takeaway 'Gender' Issue 26

Points of light and the Androgyne - By Selim 'Selim' Talat

Points of light and the Androgyne

 

i) More voices means more power to the group

- The patriarchy is not an alliance, more a code of battle that respects his rivals right to fight. It is composed of 'points of light' in great number. Although each point is individual, it is granted freedom (to flourish or perish) by belonging to the whole. Thus, every action of an individual within the fully composed 'face' is more powerful than it would be individually.

- Without a collective face, without a voice, an individual entity can rarely be heard, or understood.

- The lack of a large number of women in philosophy is why her face is only half-formed. This lack of number disempowers all of the points of light that make up this face.

ii) Our romantic imagination is oppressing the 'female'

- How powerful the human imagination is! It can add so much romance to the world, yet often at the cost of missing the real picture.

- A value system is always formed, sometimes outside the ordinary dictation of nature (for instance, what is considered 'beautiful' can be completely removed from any natural instincts - for better or for worse).

- Appeals to 'human nature' are often made by those who cannot fully define what they actually mean by the cliché.

- The new reality created by the mind is easily reinforced by the self-obsessed creature. The romance of illusion replaces reality when it becomes second-nature.

- The warped view of the 'female'-other is more appealing than the human-she (at least, to this perverse mindset). She is mysticized as something simultaneously greater and less than human - she is one day admired, another day feared. On no day is she an equal. And in reality, the power of mystical femininity is no real power at all.

- A different value system emerges for woman and man, man and woman. This becomes habit, then tradition. Traditions have the habit of being accepted unquestioning and being enforced by mass dis/approval – the power of brute mental force!

- The true egalitarian starting point of different genders, linked, equal, in an intimate alliance, is polarized by that most horrid of things - platonic perfection. Unrealistic ideals create unreachable goals and beautiful phantoms that nullify the magic of this 'dull' world - we stand now in the shadow of false gods.

- The face of the Patriarch is full, his voice a resounding echo of power. The Matriarch is not yet complete. She is still dancing to his tune, playing his game, powerful only within its confines.

iii) With equal respect for the outcomes, we discover an equal choice

- So long as 'female' is seen as a romanticised entity, more so than her 'male' counterpart, the true nature of her cannot be seen. Nor can she be truly understood, or respected, whilst we maintain these delusions.

- Soon (when?) Matriarch shall be complete, beside Patriarch. She can match him and both will dissolve into an Androgyne. Between the binary extremes of gender can fully emerge near-infinite possibility.

- From this point the individual will be free to design itself between the broad barriers and guidelines of the many genders that inhabit our sphere of experience.

- Such is the nature of our inevitable progress.

By Selim 'Selim' Talat

The Philosophy Takeaway 'Gender' Issue 26

Sexism, Logic and Intuition - By Martin Prior

Sexism, Logic and Intuition

In the period 1974-6, I was active in the National Council for Civil Liberties (NCCL now ‘Liberty’).  At the beginning of this period, banning pornography and prostitution were seen as reactionary in the same way perhaps as any other form of censorship.  Over that short period attitudes changed and differing feminist views became more prominent.

I felt that a number of their arguments were logically flawed and unhelpful.  Before going into detail I am going to consider two points, the first to do with racism.  The late Jade Goody from Big Brother was once accused of being racist for doing an Indian accent, and her response was ‘but people imitate my accent’.  But recently I heard an Indian say – I think on the Wright Show (Channel 5) – that he often heard people doing Indian accents, but he knew intuitively when it was offensive.  Being an immigrant myself, I would say my reaction is similar.  As a linguist I have on occasion done this Indian accent – with best Sanskrit consonants - but I am in fact making a linguistic point, as might an accent trainer in the theatre.  But I have never formally studied Indian intonation which I can improvise without any difficulty, and this bothers me since I am not sure it comes out as respectful.

 

The second point can be made with a Venn diagram I produced two issues ago, about negative reference.  It is shown opposite:

Note that this is a mathematical statement: in language, depending on intonation and context, we might be conceding that two or three blondes might not be stupid (especially with a rising tone).

No, not all blondes are stupid, and some know intuitively when they are being offensively treated as stupid.  But I wonder if such attitudes have an ‘adverse environmental effect’: by being treated as stupid, they use their intelligence less.

Let us know get to the substance of the issue: certain activities are regarded as ‘treating women as objects’.  Well firstly, an argument condemning activity between consenting adults on the basis of a simile is a very questionable ethical argument.  Many things have a resemblance to something else: if I lift somebody up from the floor, in a sense I am treating somebody as an object, so one must go directly to the basis of the similarity that causes concern.

But even if we accept this description of the activity: treating some adults as objects with their consent does not imply we should treat all such adults as objects regardless of their consent.

So we cannot condemn say beauty contests for treating people as objects, but I believe we can go back to intuition: if our intuition is that the people present at such activities ‘treat blondes as stupid’ and the like, then we may feel that even if the event is not intrinsically sexist, in practice that is precisely what it is.  But we must also avoid making generalisations.

I talked at the beginning about consenting adults, and if we don’t respect intuitions we may well not gain such consent.

What set me on the path of questioning feminist arguments was that of gender rôles, mainly condemned because different societies had different rôle systems, and all tended to justify them on an innate basis: so women were innately better cooks etc etc.  Since this is wrong, gender rôles must be wrong.  But the flaw in this is that even if societies don’t all have the same rôle systems, all societies have some rôles.  My view is that gender rôles are chosen according to what can be conveniently combined, and even though one might feel this was not an optimal mix in terms of aptitude, this is compensated for by early learning.

But this combination principle mainly applies within households, so that in terms of careers, aptitude has to be relevant, and studying this should certainly not critically depend on intuition: there is no way that a combination principle can be invoked to say that ballet dancers must be either female or gay!  And feminism is certainly not ‘post-’, so anyone thinking of being the father of post-feminism need not apply.  Nor post-anti-racism.  Nor (even in Tony Blair’s wildest dreams) post-Trades-Unionism.

Philosophers may well be wary of resorting to intuition, but in fact it is the basis of modern linguistics.  Linguists these days do not accept something as grammatical in a particular language unless it accords with the intuitions of a native speaker.  That is a starting point: and philosophy cannot directly use intuitions, but it will have something to say about any scientific method that draws upon it.

Such intuitions to my mind explain why for some ethnic and other groups a neutral term soon becomes derogatory, so that another neutral term has to be found.  Thus the term Polak is derogatory in the States, even though it is the Polish for Pole.  And ‘hussy’ originally meant housewife, and ‘bird’ is derived from a dialect word – I believe Northern - related to bride.

Just one more thing: aren’t beauty contests reinforcing one particular idea of beauty, one particular ‘eye of the beholder’?  So who is what is disrespectful to?

Postscript on post-feminism...

In the last issue we talked about magic, and about madness in the issue before that, so now I can adapt my diagrams of those issues to post-feminism:

 

The analysis is very similar to that of Magic.  But the bubble should really straddle :)  and :].

The very serious point relates to observations and variables: any progressive movement will deal with a situation there are more variables than observations, and must proceed by trial and error, picking out the strands in a situation.  As in language-learning, which might be characterised by

imitation(!) -> deduction -> correction,

error has to be constructive.  In that process, where the parallel of imitation is problematic but possibly still valid (perhaps rôle-models but this needs further examination), deductions will often take the form of over-generalisations.  We will add to our understanding if we allow for intuition, and allow for gender rôle within the household and outside, but of course that creates problems as well as attempted solutions.

By Martin Prior

The Philosophy Takeaway 'Gender' Issue 26

The Feminist Reaction To Evolutionary psychology

Evolutionary psychology is a theory that states psychological mechanisms evolve casually as a survival skill to over come the 'hostile forces of nature'.  The theory can make predictions based on what would be advantageous to survival, thus describing the teleology of human nature, with physical and psychological mechanisms that help to achieve this goal for the longest time possible.  Evolutionary psychology gives a description of human nature, with strong results. For example fear and snakes.  By developing the psychological state of fear, we greatly enhance our survival chances; we feel fear when we believe our life is under threat and this causes us to develop reactions and intentionality that guide us to avoid these situations or at least focus in order to avoid fatalities.  Once we developed fear and experienced poisonous snakes, we inductively learnt to react with fear in the presence of snakes, thus we have a natural fear of snakes even though this danger is far more reduced today, with anti-venoms and such, it is still a part of our nature to fear snakes.

Psychological mechanisms develop by maximising what will optimise our survival, which will be definitive of our future natural dispositions, but something has changed in our environment which has caused defiance to certain developed psychological mechanisms.  This defiance took manifest in feminism (for example).

One psychological mechanism which both male and females have developed is attraction. In the largest survey of its day, looking into the habits of what males and females find attractive in the other sex, (buss, D.M. (1994a). the strategies of human mating, American scientist, 82, 238-249), this survey was done over six continents, over 10,000 subjects, from Nigeria to Japan and showed that women rank financial resources 150% more important then males in finding a long term partner attractive.  This would make sense as a male who can provide an abundance of food for this female and possible child will increase their survival prospects.  Women who attracted good hunters would have been more successful in surviving and breeding then women who didn't and thus the psychological state of attraction is mechanically joined with a successful male. In short resource access causes attraction in women.

But given our now advanced science and agriculture, do women still rely on males to provide in the same way? For example the sex disqualification act of 1919 allowed women to work and divorce  men and as we have grown, women now have a strong presence in the work place and gain highly powerful and respected jobs.  It seems analogous to the fear of snakes, a evolutionary lag in attraction is still present but is changing.

The natural environment hasn't changed but the social environment has and not necessarily in a evolutionary beneficial form, the idea of a women earning more then the male, at least 50 years ago and before, may have been off-putting to other possible mates as they would be emasculated, yet the feminist force has continued pushing against evolutionary mechanisms. 

Feminism can be seen as a reaction to evolutionary psychological mechanisms in the sense that the dependence on the males is caused by out-dated social structures, and in this sense feminism is progressive, but a more profound transition has occurred in this defiance to psychology.  Evolutionary influences give rise to automaton women or, as Simone de Beauvoir would have said, psychological mechanisms are responsible for women's state of immanence, and so there is an existential shift, affirming being and not automaton instinct, allowing choice instead of doing what is required to survive and as women becomes more successful it seems reasonable that attraction to wealth, will be displaced to other factors, perhaps creating a turn towards intelligence, wit and honesty.

But in summary, our sociability is moving to point that is causing a choice based on being and not reflex survival mechanisms, re-defining psychological states that will affect change in human nature.  It is interesting that the more independent we are of mother nature, the more independent humans are, becoming existentially authentic in choice, allowing decisions to be made by self reflection and not mere mechanisms. It shows we are moving away from what Darwinian evolution distilled in our physiological and psychological make up and entering a phase which is unknown to us.

T.C.R.Moon

The Philosophy Takeaway 'Gender' Issue 26 

Do you believe in magic? - By Patrick Ainley

Do you believe in magic?

‘Who does not know Turner’s picture of the Golden Bough?’ begins one of the hoariest old explanations of the origins and progressive development of magic, religion and science – in that order, traced through 12 volumes of evidence from anthropology and history collected into a great scheme of things. Sir James Frazer’s The Golden Bough is the type of meta-narrative no longer approved of in these postmodern times. It is speculative and, in its own way, magical but it offers a simple and coherent explanation of magic – or, rather, magical thinking. What would baffle Sir James is the return of so much magic today. To do that needs resort to another hoary old Victorian denizen of London – Karl Marx and his concept of ‘commodity fetishism’ which he advanced in his grand and historical scheme.

According to Frazer, magic works on the principle of homology: if one thing resembles another, they are thought by people who do not know better to have some connection and influence on each other. The winter mistletoe on the Druid oak is sacred because evergreen like summer. If your liver troubles you, the remedy lies in the liverwort which looks like a liver, rather than perhaps stopping drinking so much alcohol. Indeed, ancient and indigenous medical systems typically present parallels between parts of the body and the natural world. This is the way homeopathy supposedly affects its magic – you take more of the same that is causing your allergy or illness in order, magically, to cure it.

Magical re-enactments of uncontrollable events can also seemingly bring them under control. So sports players often perform personal rituals – touch left foot with right hand, right foot with left hand – before beginning play. Students carry the same ‘lucky mascots’ into exams, hoping their presence on the desk or in their pockets will bring them the luck that got them through the last exam. Or they go through irrational actions – cramming all night before the exam, for instance, even though this reduces their chances of even staying awake the next day!

While such rituals may have psychological benefits – putting you ‘in the zone’ so you can concentrate – they are plainly not the basis for a coherent explanation of events. To find this, Frazer thought that as evidence accumulated humanity moved from magic to religion, typically reducing the many influences, spirits and gods of – for example – the oldest surviving religion, Hinduism, to concentrate on placating a reduced number of deities in ‘more advanced’ religions, such as the pantheons of Egyptian or Greek gods, usually families ruled over by a guiding king or sun-god, like Ra or Zeus. In monotheisms, this presiding deity became the sole remaining God – even if Christianity complicated things by giving him a son! Islam is therefore simpler and more advanced/ progressive than Christianity in Frazer’s view but, of course, simplest of all would be to have no gods at all and move on to science which ‘has no need of that hypothesis’ for its predictions, as the French scientist Laplace supposedly told Napoleon.

Despite the pragmatic scientific world view supporting so much of our lives and thought today, in situations of uncertainty people tend to revert to religious or even magical thinking; like the Irish playwright Brendan Behan who said that he was ‘a daylight atheist’ but when it got dark he fell down on his knees! ‘Do you believe in magic/ In a young girl’s heart?’ as the Loving Spoonful asked, relating to the apparent uncertainties of pair-bonding – though most people in fact find their partners within their own social class, however defined. The song also illustrates how commercial popular culture keeps such beliefs alive so that Marx argued that human relations under capitalism were ‘fetishized’. Like the example that Frazer gives of West African fetish kings, the masked ruler or his (occasionally her – as in the UK today!) effigy/ totem is credited with ‘control of the weather and so forth’ (not in the UK!).

So, in the ‘immense accumulation of commodities’ that Marx says makes up the wealth of capitalist societies and which the economy must go on producing and selling to maintain itself, ‘the productions of the human brain appear as independent beings endowed with life’ and, invertedly, ‘relations between people assume the fantastic form of relations between things’. The use of the commodity produced for sale becomes less important that its price, so that ‘priceless’ and really incomparable art works, for example, are fetishized in an imaginary hierarchy of quantity over quality. As indeed, everything and everyone has their price which can be rated on a monetary scale. Money, the symbol of value and exchange, thus becomes more real than the things it buys.

This has a psychological underpinning in Freud’s notion of fetishists replacing the real object of their desires with a substitute – like women’s shoes, notoriously (though the Chinese did the same by binding feet)! The fetish is endowed with magical powers that we can see in advertisements where the commodity assumes a life of its own, like cars that speak and are presented as somehow ‘sexy’ or ‘powerful’. This tendency towards fetishism is heightened in the postmodern simulacrum that presents itself as more real (‘hyper-real’) than reality because, although depending upon science for their production, the inner workings of the fetishized commodities that fill our world become more arcane and unknown to most people. And so as we work them and they work themselves by so-called ‘artificial intelligence’, they assume magical properties and the world spirals out of human control or even understanding.

We cannot therefore be so confident that, as Frazer concluded his voluminous study, the ‘clouds and thick darkness’ of magic that envelop ‘the backward portion of the web… which the Fates are now weaving on the humming loom of time’ will be irradiated by the rationality of science. Especially as the productions of science are fetishized as the commodities of an unsustainable hyper-reality, our species must disenchant the world we have created in order to survive.

By Patrick Ainley

The Philosophy Takeaway 'Magic' Issue 25