I despise the comment limitation on characters. Then I realized, I run this damn blog - I can just make a post!
Reply below. I think anyone who follows this blog may find the conversation interesting anyway. Continued from here.
If you want to endorse Aquinas's full account, which is backed by almost no logical arguments and is one of his weakest claims, then be my guest. But don't pretend that it's anything like what contemporary Catholics believe.
I can depart from Aquinas on this part and simply go with the facts as we have them and basic reason. You brought Aquinas up, after all - not me. Now you tell me that Aquinas' views on that front were weak and sexist. Okay, I'll concede that for the sake of argument, then take Aquinas out of the equation - and you're still not where you want to go, at least given what you've said so far.
Please enumerate them.
Do I really have to enumerate the cultural expectations and practices rooted in a woman being pregnant? Are you treating pregnancy as a non-factor with regards to gender?
The hijab is also the least problematic piece of clothing I mentioned.
Your examples, not mine. You gave that up as an example of something 'murky'. Are you now saying - as I said - that it's not murky at all?
I'd appreciate it if you could also explain the difference between the bikini or muscle tee and toplessness or the choli, and why one is right and the other is wrong.
That gets into intention and cultural expectation, which is not necessarily murky, but merely variable. A woman topless in New York, intentionally trying to draw attention to herself sexually/provocatively and knowing that it runs against her cultural expectations, is committing a clear wrong. Again, not really murky.
Women who don't wear the hijab are considered immodest. That is a Muslim standard of modesty.
Right, but we're not talking about the Muslim standards of modesty - we're talking about the hijab. The hijab is a rather covering piece of clothing. Nothing oppressive about it in and of itself.
By the way--what about those doctrines? Should we consider them fine or false? How do we distinguish the relative from the absolute on any of these issues?
Right now, I'll settle for one - the hijab. I think I'm showing that it's not murky at all, it's simply in and of itself non-oppressive. You're switching over to talking about attitudes. A bikini is oppressive if a man will beat her for not wearing it - but then, it's not really the bikini that's oppressive, now is it?
So, I'm lost. In places, you seem to accept that habit and plasticity are the causes of gender differences, and that physical differences contribute to these only by limiting the possible experiences of the person. But this contradicts your seeming insistence that gender differences are genetically determined and thereby essential. What are you arguing, here?
I'm taking a nuanced view. There exists some amount of plasticity - but not nearly as much as the feminist I encounter would have me believe. There is no patriarchy, and there is no white or male privilege worth speaking of. There is a fair amount of biological determinism, because determinism does not require stark black and white 'a woman can never be 6' tall' views, but default capabilities that fall within a particular range, which have upper limits on what can be achieved by practice, and which is distinct enough between men and women to matter.
That isn't what it means, as I showed.
No, you didn't. You repeated that they were expected to have strong intellectual skills - that was the only point of contention, and the 'intellectual skills' were far from, based on what I've read, anything that would really challenge the western view.
That's now how you would describe analytic philosophy's Fregean notion of existence, or its rampant materialism, or its adoration of Daniel Dennett, or its flirtation with eliminativism?
Since when does analytic philosophy adore Dennett? He's a prominent figure, but my impression is most people thought that Chalmers of all people had the better argument, and that Dennett's answers were not ultimately satisfactory. Eliminativism is a fringe position even now, and the Fregean notion of existence is, I think, not as prominently discussed (perhaps assumed) as you'd take it. I think the current state of academia, period, is rotten. But I don't think its failures are quite you think they are.
How about the absurdity of symbolic logic or modalism, or the logical positivism that still influences current thought?
Give credit where it's due - logical positivism died. Quickly. And most philosophers acknowledged it did. The LP you talk about is often unconscious - people make mistakes. Symbolic logic and modalism? It's problematic, but not out and out absurd - that's often a case of 'okay tool, but it's not as useful as people like to think it is'.
feminist theory has high points as well. Most of it is hogwash, but a few of its arguments and concepts are valid. I would say the exact same thing about analytic philosophy.
I think if you compare the basic culture and fundamentals of even modern academic philosophy with feminist theory, academic philosophy comes out ahead easily. Hell, even now platonists are an apparent majority among philosophers, period. I think their handling of theism is wretched, but I also recognize philosophy's a whole lot bigger than that.
The problem is a case of half the produce being spoiled in the philosophy case, but in feminist theory you've got far worse of a situation.
The Catholic Church is a disaster, particularly in America. It is an absolute trainwreck, and it has been for about a hundred years. Why do you think Pope Francis is so relentless about reforming it?
Like I said: compare it to the episcopalians. Part of that trainwreck is the American nuns, and - of all things - the feminist influence. At least the US Bishops were able to unite against contraception - contraception! In this day and age! At least they're united against abortion. They have their faults - that is putting it mildly - but I will not pretend they are anything close to the feminist faults.
This is like a beauty contest where I've got Anne Ramsey on the stage. Okay, fine - not exactly a looker. She has personality. You? You've got the freaking doll from Madame. That thing's not even human!
As for computer science and game development, I don't really consider them intellectual fields. Either way, computer science is, to my knowledge, currently stagnant. Game development is a mess, and for about a decade it has achieved the seemingly impossible task of getting worse every single year.
Computer science stagnant? Even if you could justify that, it's a stagnant state that gave us the internet, GPS in our cars, and a million other things that have done more to liberate and educate people (along with other problems, I admit) than feminism managed since its inception. If it's stagnant, it's because they did so much, so fast, that they're hitting their limits. Feminism's currently wrapped up in obsessively lowering the standards for women in its ever-desperate need to make sure no woman is ever held responsible or blamed for her actions, ever.
Game development is in a fantastic state in terms of the technical quality of what is being produced, and more.
Don't be dense. I'll see your schismatic liberal group and raise you the male-dominated Sedevacantists. And, as far as the idea of women's groups led by women goes, convents have been doing that for nearly 2,000 years.
That's the thing, Rank. The male-dominated sedevacantists are at least answered by the male-dominated hierarchy, which saw fit to put Francis as Pope. (A guy I've defended, by the by.) What's the female answer to the LCWR? The episcopalians?