Advanced Search

A website I came across reads: "Can I Kiss You?" Ask any woman and she will tell

A website I came across reads: "Can I Kiss You?" Ask any woman and she will tell you – a man should NEVER "ask" for a kiss. Asking for a kiss goes against EVERYTHING a woman is looking for in a man… you may as well just tell her right there that you are a BOY. Her answer might be "yes" if she is being polite… but her attraction meter on the inside will read a firm, "No!" Now assuming this is true--------Aren't women essentially demanding that men are supposed to risk a violation of their boundaries during the courtship ritual? According to academically sanctioned feminists (most of whom are ironically put in place by the predominantly male controllers of the universities) "unwanted sexual attention" is always a problem that men impose on women unfairly. People who advocate for men's rights (who are actually trying to help women realize their true powers) say that actually women's courtship demands often require that men take a risk that might be unwanted and that the expectation that men always read...

I guess I'm wondering why we should assume any such thing is true. Frankly, the website where I found that advice sounds like it's trying to explain precisely how to manipulate women. So the rest of the questions just don't seem to arise.

And why believe there is any such thing as "women's courtship demands"? Is there some kind of secret society that decides what those are? Are they passed by majority vote? or is the decision imposed by an unelected dictator?

According to posters placed around my college 40% of women and 60% of men

According to posters placed around my college 40% of women and 60% of men believe that rape is acceptable in some circumstances such as if a girl uses a guy for money. I contacted one of authors of that study but I received no response from her. I've tried to track down the veracity and basis of that claim but I can't and I think it's an unlikely claim. Does this show a lack of interest in feminist issues within society and on college campus? I really feel that it does. When I see stuff like that I want to know what I can do to correct it because I care enough for feminism that I don't like the idea that a movement that implicitly characterizes feminism as irrational and incapable of taking facts seriously has gained ascendency at the expense of other discourses that might change the world for the better.

One thing you could do is do a library search on the author(s) names, perhaps have a librarian help you. You are quite right to have high standards for empirical claims. Be careful not to let "I think it's an unlikely claim" have too much weight; the reason we do empirical studies is because we are sometimes surprised by the findings (otherwise, why bother?) Many feminist academics (although not all) have the highest standards in their research.

It is said that whether sexism is intentional or not does not matter - it is

It is said that whether sexism is intentional or not does not matter - it is sexism all the same. How does that work, though? We generally distinguish between, for instance, killing someone by accident (as in manslaughter) and killing someone on purpose (murder, especially premeditated murder), and we generally agree that the longer or more intensely a crime has been intended, the worse it is. Why, then, should accidental sexism be just as bad as sexism that is intentionally perpetrated by somebody who explicitly approves of sexist ideas?

For the reasons you give, an accidental sexist utterance or other act does not reflect as badly on the agent as a like premeditated sexist utterance or other act. So let's be charitable and interpret the initial sentence as meaning that such an act -- whether intentional or not -- is just as harmful. The point of saying this is to get us all to try harder to avoid "accidents".

Is there such thing as a male feminist philosopher?

Is there such thing as a male feminist philosopher?

I think it depends on what precisely you mean by "feminist," but by most understandings of this term, I think there are a number of male feminist philosophers, and certainly an even greater number of male philosophers who are generally very sympathetic to and agree with feminist philosophy, even if they do not count feminist philosophy as one of their research specialties.

From an armchair sociological perspective, I'm inclined to think that actually most male philosophers agree with much of feminism--including some who are nonetheless still capable of very un-feminist behaviors at times. Alas, it is one thing to recognize the value of a certain philosophical point of view, and quite another to live up to the demands of that point of view!

Can a white male ever legitimately speak about racism or sexism?

Can a white male ever legitimately speak about racism or sexism?

As a white male myself, I guess I'm answering your question in the affirmative by even presuming to post an answer to it at all. Surely the question you asked is so broad that no one could reasonably answer it in the negative. Racism exists: some people or practices are racist. Sexism exists: some people or practices are sexist. There: I've said it, and I defy any reasonable person to deny my assertions or call them "illegitimate." Now, it's a harder and more interesting question exactly how much a white male can say about racism or sexism without losing credibility on those issues, but I'm inclined to think that a white male could, in principle, become the world's foremost authority on racism and sexism, and the burden of proof would rest with anyone who said he couldn't speak legitimately on this or that particular aspect of those issues: we'd be owed an explanation why not.

Why do some feminists like to criticize rationality so much? Doesn't that just

Why do some feminists like to criticize rationality so much? Doesn't that just reinforce the idea that women are less rational?

Let me begin by saying that any meaningful discourse requires reason,including feminist attempts to mount a critique of reason!

Feminists differ significantly, so there is no one answer to your query, butthere seems to be a shared conviction that rationality alone is insufficient toshed light on many of the deeper problems humans seek to solve. One wayto ask the question could be: "Given its rightful role in any inquiry,does rationality exhaust all aspects of a given question?" or: “Howdoes one's experience, cultural identity, gender, along with many other socialmarkers shape the nature of the questions one raises and the answers one iswilling to consider ‘rational?’"

Historically speaking, the raising and answering of significant humanquestions has been done in the context of educated, white, European maleacademics or clerics. Perhaps Descartes could sit by the fire and believehe is but une chose qui pense (a thing that thinks), but is this theexperiential norm for most men and women? Where are the meditationsdevoted to their collective wisdom?

Remember, feminist do not debate arithmetic and so I would suggest thatfeminists do not critique rationality per se. Rather, feminists argue that reasoning thatpurports to be universal but is not inclusive of a wider range of humanexperience/reasoning is never "pure reason" but contextual. But this isn’t just a feminist matter! Why would anyone wish to privilege a narrowsample of one type of reasoning (significant in its own right) to the exclusion of all others?

Have philosophers before the 20th century had anything good to say about women?

Have philosophers before the 20th century had anything good to say about women? Schopenhauer and Nietzsche obviously did not have very nice things to say and Kant said they were better for matters of beauty and Hegel compared them with plants but I don't know if that is a bad thing since he compared men with animals but I don't know if any philosopher ever said anything good. (I just remembered Mill said good things but I don't who else.)

Plato calls in his Republic for women to participate as equals in the activities of citizenship, saying that surely many women are more excellent than some men and that less excellent women should be disqualified from various roles (along with less excellent males) on account of their lesser excellence rather than on account of their gender.

I would like to ask if you feel it is contradictionary for chivalry to exist in

I would like to ask if you feel it is contradictionary for chivalry to exist in a world where women push for equality. From a logical point of view a woman is perfectly capable of opening a door for herself and yet it is ingrained into society that men should open doors for women, the explanation for this being that it is polite, shows manners and shows you are a "gentleman". However I feel it is quite the opposite, if anything it promotes the idea that a woman is feeble and incapable of performing something as simple as opening a door. If a person had difficulty or was incapable of opening a door since I am performing for that person, what that person is incapable of. This makes sense. An even more extreme example is the romanticized idea of the man dying for the woman. If both men and women are equal shouldn't it really be every person for themselves in such a situation? Yet a man would be considered "weak" for allowing a woman to die when he could have saved her by sacrificing his own life in place of...

I think that you are right--in age of gender equality, opening doors for women, paying for them on dates, and definitely dying for them, seem to make little sense. Why, then, do these behaviors persist? In part, they persist because many people do not fully believe in gender equality. In addition, I think that some people just find it difficult to change their behavior for a variety of reasons, even when they believe in gender equality. My husband, for example, feels more well-mannered when he opens the door for a woman, and he likes that feeling (he was an Eagle Scout). (He prefers to be thought of as a little bit traditional than as a little bit inconsiderate.) As long as we treat women and men differently, gender equality will be a struggle. I ask my husband not to open doors for me--in practice taking turns opening doors seems to work best. We can all be more considerate of each other.

In this question, I'm going to assume there are strictly two human biological

In this question, I'm going to assume there are strictly two human biological sexes, male and female. That assumption isn't exactly true (chromosomal variations), but it's a close enough approximation to ask the question. At restaurants such as "Hooters," provocatively-clad females serve food to patrons. There are no male waiters. No one seems to think too much about it. I think, however, that many people would be appalled if we had restaurants whose theme was to have provocatively-clad Jewish people serve food, or provocatively-clad African Americans serve food, or provocatively clad [insert religious or ethnic or national group] serve food. There are, of course, ethnic restaurants. So we might think of Hooters as nothing more and nothing less than another type of ethnic restaurant, this one peculiar to sex instead of ethnicity. Is this good reasoning? Maybe that reasoning is not valid. Women have a sex (female) and men have a sex (male). There can't be anything intrinsically more sexual about...

The questions that you are asking are terrific! They can also be taken further. E.g. is it necessary for you to assume that there are strictly two biological sexes? (I don't think so). Or e.g. What is wrong (if anything) with sexualization of a group? What is wrong with sexualization of a subordinate group? It is not difficult to turn up inconsistencies in what society considers to be socially normative.

Is it unethical to look at a woman's breasts? What if she has cleavage?

Is it unethical to look at a woman's breasts? What if she has cleavage?

Here's a plausible principle: in general, we shouldn't do things that are likely to make people uncomfortable. This is particularly true if our only reason for doing whatever we're doing is that we get some sort of enjoyment out of it. And if we're in doubt about whether we're likely to make the person uncomfortable, better to err on the side of caution.

The principle is actually a broad one, as we can see if we change the example a bit. Suppose the person sitting across the room from me has a very sweet face. There's nothing wrong with noticing, but staring is another matter; that's likely to make the person uncomfortable. This is true even if the s/he has made some effort to highlight facial features. Noticing, even appreciating is one thing; staring, let alone ogling, is another.

That's the general advice. In real life, there are lots of subtleties. It's not unusual for one person to notice that another is "checking them out," as it's sometimes put, and to be flattered. That might be particularly true if the setting is a bar where people go to meet one another. But even there, the general rule is still a good one.

Maybe the simple version is this: I shouldn't be creepy. And if someone might well think what I'm doing is creepy -- even if I don't mean it to be -- I shouldn't do that either.

Pages