den_wolf

I actually wrote a review of one of Atwood's books The Edible Woman, and gender roles in it (good story, poorly written though). If you need help and some outside ideas that you can relate to the main text(s) you're analysing, let me know. Some key words I would consider including: patriarchy, gender hierarchy, gender performance, sexuality, gender identity, concepts of femininity (by itself, or in comparison to masculinity), sexual politics, stereotypes (and stereotyping). Those are pretty obvious ones, I think.

Indeed. That is a great book. Certainly very useful for those who are interested in political philosophy. Not to forget Machiavelli's The Prince.

Not at all. I was just making some comments on Atwood in general, not necessarily on that piece. What class is that for? Is it about gender studies or just plain boring English literature analysis? Just thought I'd throw some suggestions if you're writing something about it. I haven't read the article you posted, but I will post again once I read it, and tell you what I think about it (not that I'm an authority on Atwood or anything). I'm not a feminist either. But I respect movements and views, and believe that in order to gain a better understanding of society, one needs to look at it from all sides. Certainly not ignoring the anti-feminist misogynist twit, "Dr." Henry Makow. I wonder what Betty Friedan and Simone de Beauvoir would've thought about his writings and views. That would be interesting. Anyhow, I'm going slightly offtopic here.

I'm not usually one to pass judgement on people for their style of writing or their views, but I must say that Margaret Atwood's style is really bad, annoyingly so, because: a) Her style is wayy too complex in its simplicity. It tries too hard. b ) She seems to try too hard to be "mysterious" or "open to interpretation." c) Her poetry is the worst I've come across, and I've read quite a lot of poetry. What has poetry come down to?! Sad. d) I don't quite understand how she has "earned" so much "fame." I don't consider her a gifted writer at all. I've read some of her books. I think she's hugely overrated. For more on the female body, gender identity, gender performance and performativity, I highly recommend Judith Butler. And if you're a fiction fan, if you want an insight on gender, culture, class hierarchies, and patriarchy, I recommend that you read Ann-Marie MacDonald's Fall On Your Knees. A relatively thick book, but worth the read. At the end of the day, it will make you think about what the female body is and all the problems women have to face each day when it comes to femininity and society's view of women's bodies and sexuality. Another fictional book by a black feminist and civil rights advocate Zora Neale Hurston, Their Eyes Were Watching God. Very, very complex book. Worth the read. I would've suggested Toni Morrison, but she too is Atwood-like. And I consider both to be the Harlequin romance-book version of what literary circles used to highly value. And all feminists must read Kate Chopin.

Perhaps it's a Microsoft thing then? Do you use a Microsoft Operating System? If it's on the Microsoft website, I wouldn't worry about it being anything such as a virus.

I should add that the book title is Ethics not The Ethics, or at least my version of the book says so..

Everyone must surely admit, that nothing can be or be conceived without God. All men agree that God is the one and only cause of all things, both of their essence and of their existence; that is, God is not only− the cause of things in respect to their being made (secundum fieri), but also in respect to their being (secundum esse). At the same time many assert, that that, without which a thing cannot be nor be conceived, belongs to the essence of that thing; wherefore they believe that either the nature of God appertains to the essence of created things, or else that created things can be or be conceived without God; or else, as is more probably the case, they hold inconsistent doctrines. I think the cause for such confusion is mainly, that they do not keep to the proper order of philosophic thinking. The nature of God, which should be reflected on first, inasmuch as it is prior both in the order of knowledge and the order of nature, they have taken to be last in the order of knowledge, and have put into the first place what they call the objects of sensation; hence, while they are considering natural phenomena, they give no attention at all to the divine nature, and, when afterwards they apply their mind to the study of the divine nature, they are quite unable to bear in mind the first hypotheses, with which they have overlaid the knowledge of natural phenomena, inasmuch as such hypotheses are no help towards understanding the Divine nature. So that it is hardly to be wondered at, that these persons contradict themselves freely. However, I pass over this point. My intention here was only to give a reason for not saying, that that, without which a thing cannot be or be conceived, belongs to the essence of that thing: individual things cannot be or be conceived without God, yet God does not appertain to their essence. Quoted from: The Ethics Part II: Of the Nature and Origin of the Mind, Benedict de Spinoza. Translated from the Latin by R.H.M. Elwes.

I like it too, but it's a bit different from the way Gloria Gaynor sings it, which is why a lot of people don't like it.

Thanks Azat. I hope it doesn't happen to anyone, no matter who they are and what they've done in their life. America-Hye, survival is a great accomplishment indeed. I don't know what you survived, but I'm sure it was a great accomplishment. Thanks Stormig. More survivors, hopefully!! (Of course, it would've been better if there were no bad things in life, but I suppose it's inevitable). Well, I wouldn't say I survived it 100%, it still occupies a huge part of my life, but it's all about coming to terms with it and moving on with the fight. But I got lucky, not all people get hit by luck like I was. I guess I'm the epitome of luck. But thanks, you all.

Good quote. But I'm afraid that would only assert that Spinoza was indeed a philosopher, about which I'm not arguing.

Cake.

Yes, but belief cannot and should not have a place in proving philosophical propositions.

Saying that God exists because there is no proof to the contrary is a fine case of the "argumentum ad ignorantiam" fallacy. And the contrary is also true; which is why using God to make claims in ethics is irrelevant. That is what my thesis is all about, ethics and the philosophy of religion and spirituality.

Kate Bush is great. Same for Dido. Would you say I'm a freak if I say Elton John? How about Gob, Incubus, and Mindless Self Indulgence?

How so? I don't think I am arguing about how Turks killed Armenians and whether or not they killed them. I'm not arguing about what is fact and what is not. I'm just trying to understand where Domino is coming from. He doesn't need to post pages of articles or arguments about whether or not the Genocide did take place, however interesting that may be. Whether they're going to recognise it is, true, a bit off-topic to this thread, so maybe Domino could start a new thread about it (or provide a link to another thread that already exists, as I'd love to read what people think about that).

angel4hope, not having experienced love doesn't mean that you cannot think about it and try to find out what it's all about. A lot of people would claim that our views on love are the result of popular culture and the constant bombardment by commercials and so on, but love is not something that you need to have "learned" about in order to be able to write about it. Writing is about stretching the imagination. And on the contrary, I think it makes it more interesting when someone writes about love that they haven't experienced. There were a lot of novelists who wrote about The Great War without having experienced it. An example of that would be Pat Barker. Does that mean her account of soldiers' suffering was any less touching? Maybe less realistic when it comes to actual events, but what is realism in love?

Pretty much it, yes. That is what I meant by "cultural relativism."

How a topic about Philosophy has to be placed into the "Other" forum I am not very pleased with . Talk about the marginalisation of Philosophy! Share your thoughts on Spinoza's philosophy (primarily ethics) here. I'm posting some of his propositions and proofs, so feel free to comment on them. PROP. V. There cannot exist in the universe two or more substances having the same nature or attribute. Proof.−−If several distinct substances be granted, they must be distinguished one from the other, either by the difference of their attributes, or by the difference of their modifications (Prop. iv.)*. If only by the difference of their attributes, it will be granted that there cannot be more than one with an identical attribute. If by the difference of their modifications−−as substance is naturally prior to its modifications (Prop. i.)**,−−it follows that setting the modifications aside, and considering substance in itself, that is truly (Def. iii. and vi.)***, there cannot be conceived one substance different from another,−−that is (by Prop. iv.)*, there cannot be granted several substances, but one substance only. * PROP. IV. Two or more distinct things are distinguished one from the other either by the difference of the attributes of the substances, or by the difference of their modifications. ** PROP. I. Substance is by nature prior to its modifications. *** Def. III. BY SUBSTANCE, I mean that which is in itself, and is conceived through itself; in other words, that of which a conception can be formed independently of any other conception. *** Def. VI. BY GOD, I mean a being absolutely infinite−−that is, a substance consisting in infinite attributes, of which each expresses eternal and infinite essentiality. Explanation.−−I say absolutely infinite, not infinite after its kind: for, of a thing infinite only after its kind, infinite attributes may be denied; but that which is absolutely infinite, contains in its essence whatever expresses reality, and involves no negation. --- Prop. XI. God, or substance, consisting of infinite attributes, of which each expresses eternal and infinite essentiality, necessarily exists. Proof.−−If this be denied, conceive, if possible, that God does not exist: then his essence does not involve existence. But this (by Prop. vii.)* is absurd. Therefore God necessarily exists. * PROP. VII. Existence belongs to the nature of substance. Quoted from: The Ethics Part I: Concerning God, Benedict de Spinoza. Translated from the Latin by R.H.M. Elwes. --- What I think about Spinoza: I think some of his "proofs" are flawed because they are based on assumptions. In fact, his entire philosophy seems to be based on the assumption that God exists, and to prove that God exists, he begs the question by saying that God cannot not exist (unable to imagine how things got to exist without God? Perhaps.) But I think his philosophy and the way he goes on to "prove" his prepositions is very interesting and sometimes very complex. Worth the read though. Woflie

Just because you haven't experienced it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. It just means that you haven't experienced it. I disagree. I think there is something absolute called "love", and while recent definitions of "love" extend to sex and sexuality, I think the feeling underneath it is pretty much the same. Just because people's definitions of something vary doesn't mean that there is no absolute truth behind it. Just like the problem with cultural relativism. But this is called emotivism. Not everything can be put to words. Hence why some things are "feelings." If you could put each and every feeling into absolute and unchangeable definitions and words, they would cease to be feelings. and do you have "evidence" or "proof" that this "god" exists? you said that you needed evidence to believe that love exists. Wolfie

Well, yes, but the past is not necessarily a marker for the future. As an example, just because empires have reached a high doesn't mean they will never have a downfall.

Is there any particular reason why you think it will "never" happen, Domino? Do enlighten us. I'm curious to hear why you think so.

"The Da Vinci Code" is a great book.

For your reading/viewing pleasure, check out the website of the "Concerned Women for America" (a bunch of anti-feminist twits): http://www.cwfa.org/main.asp

To address some of the points he tries to make: A woman's "natural" role has changed over time and space, and continues to do so. Terms like "natural role", "destiny", "reward", you can tell this guy is a misogynist. These terms are used by people like him so often that it's not hard at all to point them out from among a crowd of 1000 people. The idea of the man as the carrier of the "seed" and the impregnator is not a new one, and this argument is used quite often by anti-feminists. What they seem to fail to recognise is that their "theories" crumble in the face of Levi-Strauss' anthropological and cross-cultural proofs of non-"traditional" gender roles and opposite images of the woman as the "receptive", "submissive" individual. And what, I dare ask, is this "divine" mission that man is supposed to achieve? Appealing to women? And what is the definition of "masculinity" according to this man? He doesn't even bother to define it. Are we to assume that he's talking about Puritan society? And what is there in this "confidence"? Confidence to do what? Who says they don't? I suppose he lived in the skin of a woman in another life... What proof does he have to support his claim that women only want to be emotionally satisfied? Why does he define a woman in relation to a man without proving that this is the way it's supposed to be? And how can he argue against the success of women on their own, without husbands to "help" them? No, I suppose he considers that abnormal. Yes, unconditional love. So that the husband would abuse it, and go on with his divine mission of cheating on his wife, because his wife was too "dumb" and unable to "keep him in." And why not the other way around? yes, I suppose he has experienced this too. for his information, there can be unity in independence. Powerful forces in the world use idiots like you to create social trends. These forces are promoting sexual repression in order to sabotage the freedom and equality, and destabilise society. "Dr." Henry Makow here has "wasted" way too much time on feminists with this "article" of his, I think. How feminine of her indeed!!! :lol: Good old Henry seems to have a very very bad case of short term memory: "He must love the woman who loves him. Otherwise he should leave her alone." Whatever happened to that? It seems like he wants to have the freedom to do whatever he wants whenever he wants, and the freedom to talk against the same things and accuse women for it. Hypocrite alert! So what IS he trying to say exactly? I thought he was making a point, until I got to this sentence, and he basically wiped out everything he said in the first place. What is it about "masculinised" women that he doesn't like? What aspect of it? What does he consider to be "masculine" and hence wrong for women to engage in? I don't get it. Of course, no one needs to pay YOU to have sex with them. Because in your Utopian society (read Dystopia), you can have sex with anyone you want, even if you're married to a nice Mexican woman who has a degree in IT, who's not your jailer, yada yada yada, JUST because you have a penis. What a nice society. And yet, he argues against those who are "obsessed with sex." I suppose it's easy for people to get PhDs these days. Ahhh, what has become of "traditional" scholarship!!!

LOL. Thanks, I try.