TreePhiend
04-26-2007, 11:28 AM
First, I want to raise a few caveats about this before I get into something that makes me sound insensitive or misogynisticor ungrounded in philosophy.
Ok, first, I guess I don't know where this question belongs in the philosophy realm, metaphysics, ethics ect. so I hope I'm in the right forum. Anyway, next I want to say that this is purely a thought experiment of some perhaps drunkin/stoned and misguided epiphany and I really hope I do not offend anyone with this. I must say I don't know all that much about feminism other than mostly eco-feminism and some political perspectives.
Anyway, here I go. In many species and I would say ours included there are obvious differences between males and females (obviously I'm not talking about just sex organs and breasts, but other physical characteristics). Look at birds, elephant seals, ungulates (deer, elk, bison, ect), lions, even orangutans, gorillas, chimpanzees. At least purely physical differences in size are noticeable. That got me thinking that the different sexes have different roles to play that better serve the community as a whole. It is as if evolution has divided certain roles for each sex to specialize in. I know that sounds contentious and deeply problematic as to where I'm going with this but I don't even know if I believe this myself, as I said earlier it is purely a thought experiment.
Here is where I begin to encounter very shaky ground. But I believe there is psychological data to back this up (although I don't have an extensive knowledge of psychology), that is that males and females have different mental specializations. Actually, I remember this pretty well, that women are better at multi-tasking than men. This is the only example I can recall at this time, but I believe there are others. Insofar as there is different mental specialization between the sexes, which may(?) follow from the physical differences that there may also be mental differences. I am not talking about mental capacities but mental specializations and I am saying on average.
One of the most basic feminist arguments is that men are generally seen as having more rational capabilities and women as having more emotional capabilities. I want to Problematize this here. I guess I should say right now, that I want to draw out this dichotomy. I don't mean emotional as uncontrollable, "hysterical" sense (as it is typically seen in feminist arguments). I guess what I'm asking is, if this dichotomy may be true to some extent in that there may be a grain of truth in here. I guess I am saying that women may be better at picking up on emotional cues than men.
I really don't want to make this dichotomous, saying that men are more rational than women because that sounds horribly sexist. But philosophy often makes us see through central tenants of our society. For example the allegory of the cave tears apart the liberal conception of equality.
Anyway, could it be that this rational/emotional dichotomy that is seen by feminists as completely absurd has a grain of truth in it?
I know I sound horrible right now, but here is where I switch from being a misogynist into more of a feminist perspective. Saying there is a grain of truth in this dichotomy seems completely anti-feminist. I want to say that it is true that our society values rationality over ability to read emotional cues. But I would say that both these abilities, rationality and emotional reading, serve very important functions and that one is not categorically better than the other. The sexism comes into play in that our society is structured in that it differently values and rewards the rational over the emotional reading aspect. I think this is where the sexism is located. But I don't think that one is really better than the other, it is just what society values. So basically my huge question is: is there a grain of truth in this rational/emotional distinction between men and women?
I could go on and try to draw this out further, but this post is getting long and its getting late. I sincerely hope I didn't offend anyone or come off as a sexist pig, I just thought of the differences and thought they served an equally valuable role. I hope you all understand that this idea is deeply troubling to me, but I think that’s where the best philosophy happens, when you let go of societal norms and expectations and just say what you thought about. I'm not saying the differnece is great, I'm saying there is may be a grain of truth to it.Don't hate me I'm just thinking. Also, I understand that this sort of rhetoric is dammaging to women but I think it is a societal value problem more than anything else. I almost appologize for having this thought, but I did think about it and I wanted some feedback on this.
---Edited on 4-26 below here.---
I'm not saying men are more rational, just that women have more interpersonal skills are are better at picking up emmotional cues. Also, as said before I feel really uncomfortable about posting this and this is just an exploration of a thought. I don't really believe this but it is an option in the formation of the emmotional/rational dichotomy that is pretty fundamental to femminism.
Ok, first, I guess I don't know where this question belongs in the philosophy realm, metaphysics, ethics ect. so I hope I'm in the right forum. Anyway, next I want to say that this is purely a thought experiment of some perhaps drunkin/stoned and misguided epiphany and I really hope I do not offend anyone with this. I must say I don't know all that much about feminism other than mostly eco-feminism and some political perspectives.
Anyway, here I go. In many species and I would say ours included there are obvious differences between males and females (obviously I'm not talking about just sex organs and breasts, but other physical characteristics). Look at birds, elephant seals, ungulates (deer, elk, bison, ect), lions, even orangutans, gorillas, chimpanzees. At least purely physical differences in size are noticeable. That got me thinking that the different sexes have different roles to play that better serve the community as a whole. It is as if evolution has divided certain roles for each sex to specialize in. I know that sounds contentious and deeply problematic as to where I'm going with this but I don't even know if I believe this myself, as I said earlier it is purely a thought experiment.
Here is where I begin to encounter very shaky ground. But I believe there is psychological data to back this up (although I don't have an extensive knowledge of psychology), that is that males and females have different mental specializations. Actually, I remember this pretty well, that women are better at multi-tasking than men. This is the only example I can recall at this time, but I believe there are others. Insofar as there is different mental specialization between the sexes, which may(?) follow from the physical differences that there may also be mental differences. I am not talking about mental capacities but mental specializations and I am saying on average.
One of the most basic feminist arguments is that men are generally seen as having more rational capabilities and women as having more emotional capabilities. I want to Problematize this here. I guess I should say right now, that I want to draw out this dichotomy. I don't mean emotional as uncontrollable, "hysterical" sense (as it is typically seen in feminist arguments). I guess what I'm asking is, if this dichotomy may be true to some extent in that there may be a grain of truth in here. I guess I am saying that women may be better at picking up on emotional cues than men.
I really don't want to make this dichotomous, saying that men are more rational than women because that sounds horribly sexist. But philosophy often makes us see through central tenants of our society. For example the allegory of the cave tears apart the liberal conception of equality.
Anyway, could it be that this rational/emotional dichotomy that is seen by feminists as completely absurd has a grain of truth in it?
I know I sound horrible right now, but here is where I switch from being a misogynist into more of a feminist perspective. Saying there is a grain of truth in this dichotomy seems completely anti-feminist. I want to say that it is true that our society values rationality over ability to read emotional cues. But I would say that both these abilities, rationality and emotional reading, serve very important functions and that one is not categorically better than the other. The sexism comes into play in that our society is structured in that it differently values and rewards the rational over the emotional reading aspect. I think this is where the sexism is located. But I don't think that one is really better than the other, it is just what society values. So basically my huge question is: is there a grain of truth in this rational/emotional distinction between men and women?
I could go on and try to draw this out further, but this post is getting long and its getting late. I sincerely hope I didn't offend anyone or come off as a sexist pig, I just thought of the differences and thought they served an equally valuable role. I hope you all understand that this idea is deeply troubling to me, but I think that’s where the best philosophy happens, when you let go of societal norms and expectations and just say what you thought about. I'm not saying the differnece is great, I'm saying there is may be a grain of truth to it.Don't hate me I'm just thinking. Also, I understand that this sort of rhetoric is dammaging to women but I think it is a societal value problem more than anything else. I almost appologize for having this thought, but I did think about it and I wanted some feedback on this.
---Edited on 4-26 below here.---
I'm not saying men are more rational, just that women have more interpersonal skills are are better at picking up emmotional cues. Also, as said before I feel really uncomfortable about posting this and this is just an exploration of a thought. I don't really believe this but it is an option in the formation of the emmotional/rational dichotomy that is pretty fundamental to femminism.