>” But is patriarchalism a myth? I think: Patriarchalism as a phenomenon is not a myth, because of the history in which mostly men have ruled- in an unjust way.”
Helmut, a patriarchy emerging magically from a vacuum to oppress womankind, as if it has no matriarchy to answer to, is a fairytale for children... the part that is missing from “The Patriarchy” myth is non-trivial:
http://www.avoiceformen.com/sexual-politics/evo-psych/transcending-the-matriarchy/
sj
From: Helmut Raulien [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Wednesday, 1 July 2015 6:12 PM
To: Stephen Jarosek
Cc: 'Peirce List'; [email protected]
Subject: Aw: RE: [PEIRCE-L] More on applying theory - culture, projection
Thank you, Stephen! Now I see your point and have read it, and do not feel offended. But I would say, that projection is something everybody does, not only the feminists. Also manipulation using shaming strategies, I guess, is applied by most other political parties too. Manipulating and lying to political opponents is even regarded as good and useful eg. in the Quran, in ancient Chinese texts, in Macchiavellis "The Prince". That does not mean, that I personally like it, I just want to say, that it is typical for particularist (in contrast to universalist) political parties. Well, "feminism" is particularist by name- but I know, that in spite of this particularist name, there are many feminists (percentage I dont know), who are not particularist, but see emancipation as a benefit for both men and women. To the term "collective cultural hallucination" I would say: Culture is exactly that, a collective hallucination, a set of collusions- but we need it, otherwise there would be no understanding, like in the story of the babylon tower in the bible. Again, I am not saying that I personally like it. I think, collective hallucinations (myths) should be analysed and talked about: Do we need them to avoid total anarchy, or can we replace them by something more senseful. About myths, I think, it is the best to uncover them. But is patriarchalism a myth? I think: Patriarchalism as a phenomenon is not a myth, because of the history in which mostly men have ruled- in an unjust way. But to say: "Unjust ruling, manipulation and suppression are things only men and not women are capable and eager of" is a myth, I would say.
Very best,
Helmut
"Stephen Jarosek" <[email protected]> wrote:
Es tut mir lied, Helmut, aber ich habe nicht stimt verstanden was sie wolten sagen J
But hey, if I read you correctly, rest assured that I only strive to state things as they are. However, it is a necessary warning to include. I don’t want to create the impression that I am trying to “trick” anyone into reading something that they ultimately won’t want to read. sj
From: Helmut Raulien [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Wednesday, 1 July 2015 12:38 PM
To: [email protected]
Cc: 'Peirce List'; [email protected]
Subject: Aw: [PEIRCE-L] More on applying theory - culture, projection
Stephen,
How should one know whether he/she would be offended without having read it? I think, critique is always justified, about anything. The only offending is that what sometimes comes along with the critique and is more than critique: For example striking back by applying similar methods to the methods the critcized apply: For example, when a feminist, who is criticizing the discrimination in patriarchalism, becomes discriminating herself. I think this has often happened in feminism, so why not criticize it. To me, what would also be offending, would be role-assignment, for instance to say, that women should have this or that role in society (in addition to the naural thing (which thus is not a role) of bearing children). I would always answer, that, if I wanted me or others to play a role, then I would have become an actor in a theater, but this is real life. The offense thus would be, that someone who is trying to assign roles to somebody, is trying to keep that person away from real life: Offense as deprivation, a form of suppression. But I am looking forward, that your text is not containing such things. So- Do you think I could read your text?
Best,
Helmut
Von: "Stephen Jarosek" <[email protected]>
Lists,
Another article of mine that is informed by semiotic-biosemiotic theory. Emphasis here is on culture and projection, especially from the perspective of firstness, secondness. Knowing how to be also relates. Again, same warning applies as last time... critical of feminism (please don’t read if such criticism offends):
http://www.avoiceformen.com/featured/shaming-as-the-narrative-of-hate/
sj
----------------------------- PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to [email protected] . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to [email protected] with the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
----------------------------- PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to [email protected] . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to [email protected] with the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
