»
Discussion
»
Philosophy 101
»
The woman, the savage and the broke guy...
| Philosophy 101 |
|
The woman, the savage and the broke guy... |
|
|
Severn Member Rara Avis
since 1999-07-17
Posts 7704
|
'The savage the peasant, the poor man, and woman are not what we call intellectual, because they are not taught to know and manipulate the materials of knowledge. The savage is outside the process from geographical reasons; the peasant is not in the center of interest; the poor man's needs are pressing, and do not permit of interests of a mediate character; and woman does not participate because it is neither necessary nor womanly. Even the most serious women of the present day stand, in any work they undertake, in precisely the same relation to men that the amateur stands to the professional in games. They may be desperately interested and may work to the limit of endurance at times; but, like the amateur, they got into the game late, and have not had a life-time of practice, or they do not have tile advantage of that pace gained only by competing incessantly with players of the very first rank.' From: http://spartan.ac.brocku.ca/~lward/thomas/Thomas_1907_a.html The woman in me rails. The sociologist in me concedes something of his point. The anthropologist in me is horrified at his terminology... (The disciplines are in the ring......) Thoughts?  Kps - the link works best if it's cut and pasted...very slow when opened from the thread...(cheers R...) [This message has been edited by Severn (01-04-2004 03:11 AM).] |
||
| © Copyright 2004 Kamla Mahony - All Rights Reserved | |||
|
serenity blaze Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738 |
"'The savage the peasant, the poor man, and woman are not what we call intellectual, because they are not taught to know and manipulate the materials of knowledge. The savage is outside the process from geographical reasons; the peasant is not in the center of interest; the poor man's needs are pressing, and do not permit of interests of a mediate character; and woman does not participate because it is neither necessary nor womanly." I admit my ignorance, K. Here (gently please?) break this quote down for me? I find it utterly confusing and being that-- for me, a very bad way to start a conversation... sincerely lovie, confused k |
||
|
Severn Member Rara Avis
since 1999-07-17
Posts 7704 |
hugs K... quote: Definitions according to the article (note, I've read this article once, and in the middle of a rather intense discussion...can't say I'm fully versed in it yet): Savage - people from 'lower races' (gag)...civilisations like african tribes, australian aborigines etc. Peasant - person working off the land to live. poor man - just that...poor people often in rural centres. And woman - often, in this article, the theorist examines women of his so-called 'lower races'...but also, in this particular paragraph, women in western societies. What he is saying is that people who fall into these categories are denied access to intellectual knowledge. The term he uses is 'body of knowledge' which is technically an academic term, for academic applications/studies/theorising etc. Now - the savage can't access these bodies of knowledge because the savage is geographically alienated - ie, stuck in an african tribe for example. (No Yale university there...) The peasant - may live within an intellectualised society, but has no access to the avenues of intellectualism (life style prevents it, different kind of knowledge is needed - ie, how to work the land to live). The poor man - too busy surviving to chase the intellectual product. And woman - well...there's a couple of things there. First - only the poor woman needs to work, apparently. A lady of leisure can 'feed from the hand.' Yes, K, if we were ladies of leisure we could feed from the hand and not have a care in the world. Charming. Secondly, it is not 'womanly' to pursue intellectual courses; he explores various definitions of 'womanly' pertaining to different cultures.. Helped? Will read article again tomorrow and elaborate more, and probably more accurately, if needed.. K[This message has been edited by Severn (01-04-2004 04:38 AM).] |
||
|
serenity blaze Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738 |
danke' lady--and this was helpful to me as to find corresponding archetype... and? nod..I'll go read now.  |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
Deleted [This message has been edited by Essorant (01-04-2004 08:45 PM).] |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
Ah, now we know why academics is so screwed up right now. We should go back to the old days I guess. |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
I'm sorry, deleted. [This message has been edited by Essorant (01-04-2004 09:21 PM).] |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
I don't understand why progress and intellect have to be based on how agreeable we are with the Roman Conquest-like pursuit of turning the world into a technological city-structure. There is much more to life than than accumulating structure and manipulating nature. Preserving and cultivating world's nature and human nature, seeing our place and finding physical and spiritual comfort to me are more progressive and intellectual roads, at least to wellbeing. I just don't see much of the kind of city and technology when it is so dominant today as bringing out the best of anything. They should be on the side, but our "intellectual" concept of "progress" seems determined on how close they get to the center, and then we start judging individuals by the same thing -by their structure rather than nature. I believe something needs to be changed about it to give more saving to the natural world and some downsizing to the imposing we are put heavily upon it. Whatever I saw and see Im sure has been magnified by too many generalizations in my mind and weary feelings from those, but I can't be off completly. The world is too unnatural and becoming even more unnatural, increasing too many structures, and decreasing too much nature. I feel like much of the world is afraid to face the "generalness" perhaps because the general populations and the general plan feel to heavy and mechanically forced in one direction. They know about it but cast it aside and focus too much on outer-specifics and exceptions, in the same way as I am casting aside the specifics and exceptions and focusing too much on the general. Some awakening will compell us back to a midpoint by a precaution we will notice we will have to follow more, or else some tyrant will rise and force it because he feels it shall be necessary, or some enviromental distress shall put fall and threaten us, but either way we will have to create better peace and agreeableness with the natural world and ourselves because right now things feel too violent and unnatural in too many direction and I don't think it may continue much longer in these habits. [This message has been edited by Essorant (01-04-2004 11:15 PM).] |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
Apologies Severn, for not reading the posted link, time limits and all... I'm a bit curious about your reaction though, railing, wincing in horror, et al... Just judging from what you've written this article seems to have missed a couple of rather important dimensions. First, only One percent (1%) of the population has an IQ of 135 or over. What are the tools required to pursue an intellectual pursuit? Looking at Western Culture no one seems to be all that interested in intellectualism to begin with -- if there was a demand for it wouldn't there be some sort of corresponding superbowl? Second -- on the subject of gender -- there are vast differences between the interests of men and women to begin with -- this was highlighted most recently to me when listening to an interview with a transgendered woman who talked about the differences in her since becoming a woman just due to the lack of testosterone... That said -- I am an admirer of Dolly Parton for many reasons -- but one of my favorite Dollyisms was just a few years back when Blonde jokes were at the peak of popularity. Jay Leno asked her if the dumb blonde jokes botherd her... her response; "Lord no, cause I know I'm not dumb or blonde." |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
"there are vast differences between the interests of men and women to begin with" I don't think there are half as many as people try to attribute and impose between man and woman. |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
Well Ess, I don't know how many half is -- but I would certainly agree that we share a majority of common interests -- but when we're talking about intellectual pursuits we're getting into the self-actualization level -- and thats where the divergent interests really begin to show. |
||
|
RSWells Member Elite
since 2001-06-17
Posts 2533 |
That was written nearly 100 years ago. More has changed in that time than the 1,000 preceding it. |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
I think when man and woman do not work in the spirit of each other they both lack wit and show dullness; but when they are joined therein they are nimblest spirit and bring out the best of being human. |
||
|
Severn Member Rara Avis
since 1999-07-17
Posts 7704 |
Hm...tell that to homosexual people Ess. Ridiculously idealistic I'm afraid. I was intending to get to this thread in full tonight....too tired, hot, exhausted and frustrated..so I'll bail...(you won't shut me up for long though - and that's a threat!) K |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
All humans may follow a regard and spirit for both sexs, no matter what your sexuality. |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
Both sexes? That seems a bit limiting to me.  Oh, wait! You mean both genders.  |
||
|
Sunshine
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-25
Posts 63354Listening to every heart |
But this is circa 1907. What's he written lately?  [do we have a tongue in cheek smilie yet?] Durn it...how did I miss Richard's comment? |
||
|
Severn Member Rara Avis
since 1999-07-17
Posts 7704 |
Groan I knew the 1907 thing would come back to bite me..... I still think its pertinent to discuss it.. ~stubborn face~ K |
||
|
Laoha Member
since 2003-03-07
Posts 161Nevada, USA |
very serious discussion. listening. |
||
|
|
⇧ top of page ⇧ |
|
| All times are ET (US). All dates are in Year-Month-Day format. | ||
