Blake says it best, I think:

"Now I fourfold vision see
And a fourfold vision is given to me.
'Tis fourfold in my supreme delight
And threefold in soft Beulah's night
And twofold Always. May God us keep
From Single vision & Newton's sleep".

treyclement said:
"James Tiptree Jnr. DID seem v. male, but brains vary more'n bodies and there's a CONTINUUM, not a CHASM, between 'male' and 'female' psychology. To draw a crude analogy: is someone who's 7'2" tall more likely to be male than female? A-course: MUCH more likely to be. Similarly, the FURTHER you head out into the literary badlands/margins, the LESS likely ya're ta discover the distaff doin' the dirty....."
-----
I don't think Tiptree seemed male at all... I think Bob Silverberg is an idiot. Tiptree seemed like someone who was wrestling thoughtfully with issues involving sex and gender, and doing so in an aggressive manner. This might have come off as "male" to some narrow-minded sorts, and it probably came across as butch lesbian to others, but as we now know the reality was more complex. If Sheldon had really wanted to stay incognito, she probably should have chosen a penname not inspired by a brand of jam. The male persona itself seems to have played a big role in the degree of daring she exhibited (much less once she was exposed), which speaks volumes about the sociological issues involved--a "man" can say things a woman "cannot"... But the fact that "he" did say them when he was perceived as male demonstrates to some extent that the expression is not in any way dependent on actual gender.

Perhaps there are fewer women on the margins of literary expression, but even if that were the case statistically, I could posit plenty of sociological explanations that might account for it without resorting to genetic (i.e., gender) "causes". I would also dispute the notion that there is a "male" or "female" psychology per se, even on a continuum.

On the margins, I can think of a number of female writers (whether in fiction or elsewhere) who are pretty "out there"--Shirley Jackson, Donna Haraway (google cyborg with the name), any number of mediocre scifi authors, Anne Rice, the list goes on. I don't read many of them, but they're out there.

As far as supernatural influences...Bah. :)



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 6 Oct 11 | 07:07PM by Radovarl.

Clark lived in isolation from main-stream society - ie, church, clubs, 9-5 job etc - however he was far from being isolated from women - and the Graves quote fits Clark to a "T" - he idolized, and was sought out by many women, especially married women - read his "love" poetry carefully - The Hill of Dionysus, and Sandalwood - you'll see what I mean - He did a lot more than "prune" fruit trees for the Sully girls in Auburn - all of whom, including the "Grande Dame" - Genevieve (which she insisted on pronouncing the French style)_ -

Absquatch Wrote:

> Blake says it best, I think:
>
> "Now I fourfold vision see
> And a fourfold vision is given to me.
> 'Tis fourfold in my supreme delight
> And threefold in soft Beulah's night
> And twofold Always. May God us keep
> From Single vision & Newton's sleep".

Dub-Dubya's variation on the theme:

WHEN I heard the learn’d astronomer;
When the proofs, the figures, were ranged in columns before me;
When I was shown the charts and the diagrams, to add, divide, and measure them;
When I, sitting, heard the astronomer, where he lectured with much applause in the lecture-room,
How soon, unaccountable, I became tired and sick;
Till rising and gliding out, I wander’d off by myself,
In the mystical moist night-air, and from time to time,
Look’d up in perfect silence at the stars.

[www.bartleby.com]

And Chuck D's:

THOMAS GRADGRIND, sir. A man of realities. A man of facts and calculations. A man who proceeds upon the principle that two and two are four, and nothing over, and who is not to be talked into allowing for anything over. Thomas Gradgrind, sir - peremptorily Thomas - Thomas Gradgrind. With a rule and a pair of scales, and the multiplication table always in his pocket, sir, ready to weigh and measure any parcel of human nature, and tell you exactly what it comes to. It is a mere question of figures, a case of simple arithmetic. You might hope to get some other nonsensical belief into the head of George Gradgrind, or Augustus Gradgrind, or John Gradgrind, or Joseph Gradgrind (all supposititious, non-existent persons), but into the head of Thomas Gradgrind - no, sir!

[www.dickens-literature.com]

And Cardinal Newman's:

I say of the angels, "Every breath of air and ray of light and heat, every beautiful prospect, is, as it were, the skirts of their garments, the waving of the robes of those whose faces see God." Again, I ask what would be the thoughts of a man who, "when examining a flower, or a herb, or a pebble, or a ray of light, which he treats as something so beneath him in the scale of existence, suddenly discovered that he was in the presence of some powerful being who was hidden behind the visible things he was inspecting, who, though concealing his wise hand, was giving them their beauty, grace, and perfection, as being God's instrument for the purpose, nay, whose robe and ornaments those objects were, which he was so eager to analyse?" and I therefore remark that "we may say with grateful and simple hearts with the Three Holy Children, 'O all ye works of the Lord, etc., etc., bless ye the Lord, praise Him, and magnify Him for ever.'"

[www.gutenberg.org]

And finally... (drum-roll please)... Queen Victoria's:

I would earnestly warn you against trying to find out the reason for and explanation of everything... To try and find out the reason for everything is very dangerous and leads to nothing but disappointment and dissatisfaction, unsettling your mind and in the end making you miserable. (Letter to Princess Victoria of Hesse, 22-VIII-1883)

[favouritequotations.ca]

I'm sympathetic, BELIEVE me... But I think one can at least TRY to steer a course between the SCYlla of scientism and the ChaRYBdis of clothheadedness.....

Radovarl Wrote:

*** I don't think Tiptree seemed male at all... I think Bob Silverberg is an idiot. Tiptree seemed like someone who was wrestling thoughtfully with issues involving sex and gender, ***

'Wrestling thoughtfully' strikes me as a tad oxymoRONic...

*** and doing so in an aggressive manner. ***

What, as opposed to 'wrestling' in a meek'n'mild manner? I intuit from your general prose that you're male; I intuit from your semantics that you're OB+...

*** This might have come off as "male" to some narrow-minded sorts, ***

I think I've read 3 JTJr stories, tops. They impressed me a lot and I did think they were v. male. I STILL think that. Biological/psychological phenomena are gen'rally probabilistic. Someone writing like JTJr is more likely to be male than female. But NOT certain to be. Cf. gigantism, serial-killing, spree-killing, sexual perversion, CAS-fandom, etc.

*** and it probably came across as butch lesbian to others, but as we now know the reality was more complex. If Sheldon had really wanted to stay incognito, she probably should have chosen a penname not inspired by a brand of jam. The male persona itself seems to have played a big role in the degree of daring she exhibited (much less once she was exposed), which speaks volumes about the sociological issues involved--a "man" can say things a woman "cannot"... But the fact that "he" did say them when he was perceived as male demonstrates to some extent that the expression is not in any way dependent on actual gender. ***

Yup. But I never claimed gender absolutely DETERMINED expression: that's why I made the point about brains varying much more than bodies... Almost everyone's got ten fingers; few of us can play CHOPIN with them. I know, I know: few of us are TAUGHT to. But if we all WERE, some of us would still be much better'n others.

*** Perhaps there are fewer women on the margins of literary expression, but even if that were the case statistically, I could posit plenty of sociological explanations that might account for it without resorting to genetic (i.e., gender) "causes". ***

I WOULD say that opposing sociology to genetics is like opposing chemistry to physics... but I WON'T. It's REALLY like opposing alchemy to physics, given the junk status of sociology, as a discipline. Not sure why you put 'causes' in quotes or why 'genetic' can only imply 'gender'.

*** I would also dispute the notion that there is a "male" or "female" psychology per se, even on a continuum. ***

'Per se' is a kinda linguistic fog-machine, so I don't know exACtly what you're saying there. That certain traits aren't, probabilistically, more male than female, and vice versa...?

*** On the margins, I can think of a number of female writers (whether in fiction or elsewhere) who are pretty "out there"--Shirley Jackson, Donna Haraway (google cyborg with the name), ***

That SOUNDS an innocent suggestion. But I'm familiar enuff with Ms. Haraway not to try it...

*** any number of mediocre scifi authors, Anne Rice, the list goes on. ***

I'd add Joan Aiken: some v. strange stuff in her stories. Y'see, I never DENIED the distaff could get down'n'dirty.... That's why I spoke of TENdency and LIKElihood:

*** Similarly, the FURTHER you head out into the literary badlands/margins, the LESS likely ya're ta discover the distaff doin' the dirty..... ***

Do Aileen Wuornos or Lizzy Borden mean violent crime isn't more 'male' than 'female'? A-course, women SOMETIMES commit violence by male proxy: the violent impulse can be there WITHOUT the physical ability to express it. The thing is... literature/art-in-general is an arena in which impulse can be translated very easily into expression. There are no PHYSICAL constraints on either gender community there. But clear patterns of literary/artistic self-segregation exist on gender... as on other variables of human difference. An' despite decades of feminism, they're not exactly fading awayyy...

*** I don't read many of them, but they're out there. ***

Who DO you read, a matter'vinterest? Mostly MALE writers?

If I'm RIGHT that you're a) male; and b) reading mostly males, here's my advice: EMBRACE your inner sexist, dude! You KNOW it makes sense... And SCIence.....

(An' if you're OFFENDED by the advice, be glad I didn't cook up an equivalent of your down-right MALEVOLENT 'Google for Donna' suggestion.....)

Trecelement Wrote:

>What, as opposed to 'wrestling' in a meek'n'mild manner? I intuit from your general prose that you're male; I intuit from your semantics that you're OB+...

I'm not at all clear if this is meant to be facetious, but my blood type happens to be B- ("OB-"), so your guess is close :).

>Yup. But I never claimed gender absolutely DETERMINED expression: that's why I made the point about brains varying much more than bodies... Almost everyone's got ten fingers; few of us can play CHOPIN with them. I know, I know: few of us are TAUGHT to. But if we all WERE, some of us would still be much better'n others.

The point I was making is that "brains" (by which I presume you mean minds) are shaped in large part by nurture, and the nurture male minds receive is very different from that of female minds. One can be socialized as a typical male while being biologically female, or vice versa, with a whole continuum in between.

>I WOULD say that opposing sociology to genetics is like opposing chemistry to physics... but I WON'T. It's REALLY like opposing alchemy to physics, given the junk status of sociology, as a discipline. Not sure why you put 'causes' in quotes or why 'genetic' can only imply 'gender'.

I would say opposing sociology to genetics is like opposing sociology to biology, two very different levels of analysis. I would also say that an enthusiast of the despised genre of weird poetry and fiction insulting an entire academic discipline is vaguely ridiculous. I put "causes" is quotes because I don't think it's possible to disentangle the complex genetic, social, and other factors that play into artistic expression in a given individual. All this toward explaining my misgivings about your assertion that an artist's characteristics can be intuited from their art.

>That SOUNDS an innocent suggestion. But I'm familiar enuff with Ms. Haraway not to try it...

I don't blame you. She's a world-class whackjob.

>'Per se' is a kinda linguistic fog-machine, so I don't know exACtly what you're saying there. That certain traits aren't, probabilistically, more male than female, and vice versa...?

Pardon me; it must be my "OB+ semantics" (whatever the heck that means) leading my astray. I think you're confusing ontology and epistemology here. There is no such thing as "probabilistic" traits. Something (or someone) either has a trait or doesn't--it either "is" or "isn't" something. The question of science (despised social science or otherwise) is how this is the case in any particular instance. If what you mean to say is that, surveyed statistically, certain traits are more often observed in males than females, then I have no objection. If what you mean is that you think there is some sort of random chance involved in whether an individual artist "presents male" or "presents female" (or "African American", "white", "upper class", or whatever, gender is just an example) then I strenuously disagree, and would suggest that you are the one operating the fog-machine.

>I'd add Joan Aiken: some v. strange stuff in her stories. Y'see, I never DENIED the distaff could get down'n'dirty.... That's why I spoke of TENdency and LIKElihood:

I'm with ya on tendency, but again I think you're being sloppy with likelihood. Just because in most cases we are unable to trace the "down 'n' dirty" to specific causes, doesn't mean that determinism isn't the rule; it just means our methods of gathering data and our analytical framework are unequal to the task.

>Do Aileen Wuornos or Lizzy Borden mean violent crime isn't more 'male' than 'female'? A-course, women SOMETIMES commit violence by male proxy: the violent impulse can be there WITHOUT the physical ability to express it. The thing is... literature/art-in-general is an arena in which impulse can be translated very easily into expression. There are no PHYSICAL constraints on either gender community there. But clear patterns of literary/artistic self-segregation exist on gender... as on other variables of human difference. An' despite decades of feminism, they're not exactly fading awayyy...

I'm not sure what you're getting at here. I don't dispute that women in our society are less often violent criminals and less often weird artists. As far as physical inadequacy, this is true only by comparison to the average male.

>Who DO you read, a matter'vinterest? Mostly MALE writers?

Yeah, mostly male writers, as I find their work resonates with me more often than that of female writers. Mostly SF stuff from the '50s, '60s, and '70s.

>If I'm RIGHT that you're a) male; and b) reading mostly males, here's my advice: EMBRACE your inner sexist, dude! You KNOW it makes sense... And SCIence.....

I am neither a sexist (nor a feminist, incidentally). But now I'm clear that you are...



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 10 Oct 11 | 07:44AM by Radovarl.

Quote:

I'm sympathetic, BELIEVE me... But I think one can at least TRY to steer a course between the SCYlla of scientism and the ChaRYBdis of clothheadedness.....

I believe you. I just want to add, though, that Blake's point is less related to an opposition between mysticism and scientism than it is a warning against seeing any phenomenon from only one perspective. One worthwhile path that leads safely between the Scylla and Charybdis you describe begins with the philosophies of Nietzsche and Vaihinger, I think.

This is in response to several of the entries here relative to Dr. Graves - I had a master class with this remarkable genius - so perhaps a little insight into what it going on in "White Goddess" - you are not dealing with "Theories" or his "opinion" - Dr. Graves, though also a poet, was first and foremost an historian of mythography - he took Frazier's "Golden Bough" more deeply into the underlying strata of language and symbolic thought than anyone else - and - he was well able to foot-note everything he said - his scholarship was higher in this field than anyone I have ever encountered in person or in print - further, the use of "secret" means of communication among the Druids - the use of the knee or nose as the "straight line" by which the Runes of Ogham could silently communicate meaning between practitioners was a piece of magnificent scholarship - I myself hold numerous advanced degrees, but I can assure you, in the on going quest to master this great work, having tackled it now at least 7 times over the course of 50 years am making a beginning at drawing near to a full understanding.
But if anyone thinks he can master Graves' in one reading, he is deceiving himself - it is a place to begin - When you have acquired a glimmer of what is going on this this amazing work, you will find dimensions of Milton and Spenser opening broadly before you - exposing some of that gnawing sense that there is more going on than meets the eye - what is being dealt with is the very nature of the language of poetic myth from the time of the grunts of Ugmuk the caveman until today - and with Graves, for those with the wit and wisdom to soak in his exposition, you will find yourself less likely to stray from the Primal stream - Have you asked yourself why it is that the stories and poetry of CAS can be returned to again and again for pleasure and profit? It is because they partake more purely from the fountain that ancient man discovered early on in his efforts to express the range of his feelings, the cosmic significance of his exitstence, and even make attempts to control his environment - language is numinous, and far beyond the simple tale - as if the Greek and Nordic myths were simply cosmic soap-operas - and many dimensions of human experience are still outside the reach of ordinary language - hence both the importance, and the deseperate need for poetry to "say the unsayable" -

calonlan Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> This is in response to several of the entries here
> relative to Dr. Graves - I had a master class with
> this remarkable genius - so perhaps a little
> insight into what it going on in "White Goddess" -
> you are not dealing with "Theories" or his
> "opinion" - Dr. Graves, though also a poet, was
> first and foremost an historian of mythography -
> he took Frazier's "Golden Bough" more deeply into
> the underlying strata of language and symbolic
> thought than anyone else - and - he was well able
> to foot-note everything he said - his scholarship
> was higher in this field than anyone I have ever
> encountered in person or in print - further, the
> use of "secret" means of communication among the
> Druids - the use of the knee or nose as the
> "straight line" by which the Runes of Ogham could
> silently communicate meaning between practitioners
> was a piece of magnificent scholarship - I myself
> hold numerous advanced degrees, but I can assure
> you, in the on going quest to master this great
> work, having tackled it now at least 7 times over
> the course of 50 years am making a beginning at
> drawing near to a full understanding.
>
It took you that long, Calonlan? I figured it all out last week, a third of the way into my first read. But--when you do reach that full understanding--feel free to share. We can compare notes--for fun, you know ;)

Side note--have you written any scholarly essays on Graves? Your rare level of insight could prove highly valuable.

But if anyone thinks he can master Graves' in one
> reading, he is deceiving himself - it is a place
> to begin - When you have acquired a glimmer of
> what is going on this this amazing work, you will
> find dimensions of Milton and Spenser opening
> broadly before you - exposing some of that gnawing
> sense that there is more going on than meets the
> eye - what is being dealt with is the very nature
> of the language of poetic myth from the time of
> the grunts of Ugmuk the caveman until today - and
> with Graves, for those with the wit and wisdom to
> soak in his exposition, you will find yourself
> less likely to stray from the Primal stream

"The Primal Stream"...sounds a very CAS story title! Coincidence...?

- Have
> you asked yourself why it is that the stories and
> poetry of CAS can be returned to again and again
> for pleasure and profit? It is because they
> partake more purely from the fountain that ancient
> man discovered early on in his efforts to express
> the range of his feelings, the cosmic significance
> of his exitstence, and even make attempts to
> control his environment - language is numinous,
> and far beyond the simple tale - as if the Greek
> and Nordic myths were simply cosmic soap-operas -
> and many dimensions of human experience are still
> outside the reach of ordinary language - hence
> both the importance, and the deseperate need for
> poetry to "say the unsayable" -

This is one of the reasons being a poet can be so frustrating--we attempt to do what really is impossible, and hope to get as close as we can. Trying to "say the unsayable" can be a titanic struggle indeed.... I have been forced into being a poet because I can't stand for the "unsayable" aspects of my own experiences to go unsaid--and prose just won't do the job. Even just capturing the full magic of a sunset--seemingly a simple enough task--I find a formidable task indeed. But I have no choice but to try. Such things effect me so deeply, and I fear to let such fleeting magic be lost. There are no words for some things...but through poetic language, we can sometimes approach the tenebrous bourne of that strange, inexpressible unknown...a weird, phantom dimension of human thought.... In this light, I can scarce fathom how any human being can abide not being a poet--unless I am peculiar in my sensitivity to certain things. I'm guessing that's the case....

I stand by my prior statements regarding over-arching pattern-finders, systematizers, and the like. Perhaps Graves is an exception; if so, then he'd be unique.

Dear Kyle - it is not that it has taken me this long - far from - it is rather, that I am not the same man I was intellectually, spiritually, and for damn sure not, physically - we change - Truth is constant - I also recommenf to the poet John Ciardi's "How does a poem mean?" - and if you can get copy or check one out of a library of Ciardi's children's book, "Scrappy the Pup" (which I was given by Prof. Ciardi, signed in 1961) you will be delighted with what a fine poet can do with that genre - absolutely delightful. Two side notes: I have not had a chance yet to carefully read your last submission and --- Ciardi loved Limericks, as do I - and around the kitchen table of Dr.William P. Hotchkiss (student of W.H. Albright et al U. of Chicago) with "Uncle John" and myself, and a substantial supply of Genessee (upstate NY Beer - modest quality) we often made elegant limericks until the wee hours - One of Ciardi's finest:
As Mozart composed a Sonata
His maid bent to straighten her garter,
He wrote down with sighs,
As he glanced up her thighs,
"Un poco piu Appassionata!"

keep it up -

O wise Dr. Farmer,

I quite understand the whole fixed truth, changing point of view phenomenon. I just felt like playing the part of the annoying youth who thinks he knows everything. In truth, I am finding Graves a harrowing endeavor indeed. I believe I am on chapter 10--and I've almost died getting there! It's such an onslaught of information completely outside my learning! However, there are many interesting bits of insight sprinkled throughout--for example, the notion of part (or all?) of the Holy Spirit originally being female, then being suppressed by language. See?--I am reading it! If not for the book of Lovecraft at my bedside, I imagine I'd be much further along by now....

Most people's sense of the wondrous is pretty much crippled by the time they have spent a few years in public school, "staying inside the lines" - and that's OK - society has always needed only a few "seers", and true "Bards", and has rarely rewarded them during their lifetime -

I'm fore-transitioning the following because I think it spotlights the kernel of the nub of the gulf between us (getting a bit Ob+ myself, there...).....

Radovarl Wrote:

*** The point I was making is that "brains" (by which I presume you mean minds) ***

No, I mean brains. Brains do a LOT more than minds, whatever 'minds' are, 'zactly. Even yogis don't (and can't) have complete conscious control over, e.g., the circulatory and immune systems (heart-rate, immuno-suppression, etc), reflexes (pupil dilation, gagging, etc), micro-expressions (fleeting facial reactions), pain, arousal (of various kinds), etc, etc. Not to mention traits like intelligence and personality. Brains are bigger than minds. So is art.

*** are shaped in large part by nurture, and the nurture male minds receive is very different from that of female minds. One can be socialized as a typical male while being biologically female, or vice versa, with a whole continuum in between. ***

One CAN be socialized. But can you point me t'ward evidence that the socialization could ever WORK?

Socialization experiment

In part, 'blank slatism' -- of which you seem an advocate -- reflects a failure of IMAGINATION... You accept that males/females, 'blacks'/'whites' differ on the OUTSIDE because the outside is VISIBLE. Brains AREN'T, so you imagine there's NO difference there, except when it's imposed by the visible environment. 'Tain't so...

** >What, as opposed to 'wrestling' in a meek'n'mild manner? I intuit from your general prose that you're male; I intuit from your semantics that you're OB+...

I'm not at all clear if this is meant to be facetious, but my blood type happens to be B- ("OB-"), so your guess is close :). ***

I shoulda mebbe said 'Ob+' (= Obama-positive). You seem to prefer surface to substance, so I'd guess you like th'old Ob'. Or HAVE liked him, at least.

*** >I WOULD say that opposing sociology to genetics is like opposing chemistry to physics... but I WON'T. It's REALLY like opposing alchemy to physics, given the junk status of sociology, as a discipline. Not sure why you put 'causes' in quotes or why 'genetic' can only imply 'gender'.

I would say opposing sociology to genetics is like opposing sociology to biology, two very different levels of analysis. ***

I think you're confusing 'level of analysis' with 'level of analysandum.' Physics, chemistry and biology operate at different levels in both senses. Sociology's raw material is wider and more complex than biology's, but sociology is NOT a science. Most sociologists would HATE it to be, 'coz you can't reach conclusions in advance and manipulate your results in science (or leastways, not as easily and not for as long).

*** I would also say that an enthusiast of the despised genre of weird poetry and fiction insulting an entire academic discipline is vaguely ridiculous. ***

Can't see the logic. Am I s'posed, as a fan of a despised genre, to support the KKK or Celine Dion, 'coz they're despised too? IMFFHO, sociology is junk (mostly). So are theology, the various 'studies,' literary/artistic criticism and great swathes of economics and philosophy.

*** I put "causes" is quotes because I don't think it's possible to disentangle the complex genetic, social, and other factors that play into artistic expression in a given individual. All this toward explaining my misgivings about your assertion that an artist's characteristics can be intuited from their art. ***

Well, you'd surely agree that one CAN intuit CAS's high intelligence from his prose. If so, you accept that one can 'disentangle' a factor that played into his artistic expression. An' yes, I know there was MUCH more to CAS than (genetically mediated) high intelligence. But it was (to coin an expression) necessary-if-not-sufficient...

*** >'Per se' is a kinda linguistic fog-machine, so I don't know exACtly what you're saying there. That certain traits aren't, probabilistically, more male than female, and vice versa...?

Pardon me; it must be my "OB+ semantics" (whatever the heck that means) leading my astray. I think you're confusing ontology and epistemology here. There is no such thing as "probabilistic" traits. Something (or someone) either has a trait or doesn't--it either "is" or "isn't" something. ***

Eh? Does alcohol (to choose merely the first obvious example) not affect an individual's 'traits'? I didn't mean '"probabilistic" traits.' Or I'd've said '"probabilistic" traits.'

*** The question of science (despised social science or otherwise) is how this is the case in any particular instance. If what you mean to say is that, surveyed statistically, certain traits are more often observed in males than females, then I have no objection. ***

That is what I meant.

*** >I'd add Joan Aiken: some v. strange stuff in her stories. Y'see, I never DENIED the distaff could get down'n'dirty.... That's why I spoke of TENdency and LIKElihood:

I'm with ya on tendency, but again I think you're being sloppy with likelihood. Just because in most cases we are unable to trace the "down 'n' dirty" to specific causes, doesn't mean that determinism isn't the rule; it just means our methods of gathering data and our analytical framework are unequal to the task. ***

I'm a determinist too. But I think members of your political-and-philosophical tendency decide a-priORi that the task is too big for analysis. OTHerWISE you might yourself forced to ideologically unacceptable conclusions...

*** >Do Aileen Wuornos or Lizzy Borden mean violent crime isn't more 'male' than 'female'? A-course, women SOMETIMES commit violence by male proxy: the violent impulse can be there WITHOUT the physical ability to express it. The thing is... literature/art-in-general is an arena in which impulse can be translated very easily into expression. There are no PHYSICAL constraints on either gender community there. But clear patterns of literary/artistic self-segregation exist on gender... as on other variables of human difference. An' despite decades of feminism, they're not exactly fading awayyy...

I'm not sure what you're getting at here. I don't dispute that women in our society are less often violent criminals and less often weird artists. As far as physical inadequacy, this is true only by comparison to the average male. ***

Indeed. An' the average -- or exceptional -- male is physically inadequate by comparison with a gorilla, elephant or great white shark. IOW, my point is about intra-group dynamics. Human evolution has been shaped, in part, by intra-group competition. An' so the differing physical capabilities of men and women will have been both a product OF and influence ON their different evolutionary pathways, i.e. different genetics.

*** >If I'm RIGHT that you're a) male; and b) reading mostly males, here's my advice: EMBRACE your inner sexist, dude! You KNOW it makes sense... And SCIence.....

I am neither a sexist ***

Heh! It's HIGHLY sexist to assume that YOU, as a mere male, could EVER absolve yourself of sexism. That's up to the oppress-ED gender community, not up to a member of the oppress-ING g.c. SOME feminists would say that a male is sexist qua male, because he BENEFITS from patriarchy whether he wishes to or NOT. Similarly, mutatis mutandis -- an' a-fortiori -- for RACISM. If you're white (as I intuit/deduce you are) and claim NOT to be racist, you merely conFIRM your racism...

More advice: learn The Rules, dude! 'Logic' and 'justice' are, after all, central tools in the genocide-box of white patriarchal oppression... (if you'll pardon the tauTOLogy....)

*** (nor a feminist, incidentally). But now I'm clear that you are... ***

Yup! Guilty as charged. I'm a sexist: also, a racist (Ob---): a homophobe: a xenophobe: etc, etc. In short: I'm a rotten'n'reprehensible reprobate. In shorter: I'm a REALIST...

So I care about facts and logic, not about labels.....

treycelement said:

"Heh! It's HIGHLY sexist to assume that YOU, as a mere male, could EVER absolve yourself of sexism. That's up to the oppress-ED gender community, not up to a member of the oppress-ING g.c. SOME feminists would say that a male is sexist qua male, because he BENEFITS from patriarchy whether he wishes to or NOT. Similarly, mutatis mutandis -- an' a-fortiori -- for RACISM. If you're white (as I intuit/deduce you are) and claim NOT to be racist, you merely conFIRM your racism..."

Clearly we're arguing past each other at this point, and verging on becoming needlessly insulting, so I'm going to disengage. I don't disagree that it's problematic to claim not to be sexist and racist while enjoying the benefits of being a white male. What I will say is that, intellectually, I oppose overt sexism and racism, because I think they are stupid and unfounded. To what degree I succeed in eliminating such bigotry in my own behavior is another matter.