Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.meta
From: shaman@cix.compulink.co.uk (Leo Smith)
Subject: Re: Feminist philosophy
Reply-To: shaman@cix.compulink.co.uk
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 22:25:00 +0000

Robert.Vienneau@launchpad.unc.edu (Robert Vienneau) writes...

>Suppose somebody offers an answer. That answer characterizes as art what is
>displayed in museums and talked about by recognized critics. It does not
>include quilts, which, in America, have been made mostly by women over the last
>several centuries. Quilts have been in use many households, and reflect
>the day-to-day concerns of their makers. Many quilts use quite abstract
>patterns. There's various standard designs that are common among
>different groups, such as Quakers.

Sounds all very patronising to me.  'We know these women can't do
REAL art so we'll pretend that making quilts equates to painting
murals'

What crap. They are different activities. Painting murals was a
profession. Making Quilts was also. We traditionally call 'art' that
which has a high degree of imagination and creativity attached to it.
Crafts are those which have a high degree of practical skills
attached, and are generally more immediately useful in their
productions..

Please don't appease. It doesn't help real feminism at all.

>The philosopher might ask several questions. How did this answer become
>constituted? Why this distinction between the social roles of art and
>nonart-like artifacts? Is it coincidence that certain objects that are
>created mostly by women and speak to their day-to-day concerns have
>been excluded from being designated as art?

Maybe they have been excluded from being desginated as art because
the term 'art' applies to something else. I mean really. If you want
to define 'female' as 'that-which-has-been-oppressed-for-centuries'
and build a new worldview based on that premise - be my guest, but at
least be clear that you are bending the facts to suit YOUR own
prejudices, or guilt, just like everyone else.

>One can imagine a similar discussion over the question "what is
>history?" One answer is that it is the stories of nations and
>empires; wars and political struggles; kings, queens, and presidents.

One can can one eh?
I am sure one can also compare the effect of the menstrual cycle and
the effect of the Otto cycle on contemporary culture. Indeed I could
spend years researching such a fundamentally pointless comparison
(anyone got any academic funding to spare?)

We have many ways to aproach the past - why pick on just one?

>Another answer might be that is the stories of the day-to-day lifes
>of various peoples. The invention of a new scheme of crop rotation
>might not count in the first definition, but might be very important
>to the social historian. Whose stories count depend on the answer.

or two?

>Since these are meta-discussions addressing issues traditionally dealt
>with by philosophers, they would seem to belong in philosophy
>departments.

You are joking I hope.

>It seems reasonable that women might have different perspectives.

It would indeed be surprising if in some way or other they did not.

>What institutional mechanism should be designed to ensure that these
>perspectives get expressed and analyzed, I have no idea, but then, I
>am not a professional philosopher or professor.

Why must _these_ perspectives, more than _any other_ perspectives,
need to be assured of expression and analysis. Is this springing from
your underlying assumption that women are in fact incapable of
expressing themselves withou special remedial methodologies?

Chauvinist Pig!

> The idea of developing a speciality of "feminist philosophy" sounds
> perfectly reasonable to me.

It sounds offensive to men and patronising to women to me.
But then I have this innate conviction that women are pretty much
equal to men, and don't actually need special treatment.

Netslinger