Podcast: Play in new window | Download (Duration: 1:35:13 — 87.2MB)
Discussing Charlotte Perkins Gilman’s utopian novel Herland (1915) and psychologist Carol Gilligan’s In a Different Voice (1983).
How does human nature, and specifically moral psychology, vary by sex? Charlotte Perkins Gilman claims that when philosophers have described human nature as violent and selfish, they have in mind solely male nature. Females, left to themselves in an isolated society, would be supremely peaceful, rational, and cooperative.
Carol Gilligan says accounts of “normal” moral development have not taken into account observations of women: instead of judging women my male standards and finding them wanting, she hypothesized a trajectory specific to women that acknowledged their emphasis on concrete care as opposed to abstract moral principles.
Featuring the return of Seth and guest podcaster Azzurra Crispino, whom you might recall from our Kant epistemology episode. We wanted this to be an introduction to feminist philosophy, and so talk a bit about exploitation and whether heterosexual sex is inherently oppressive, and other fun topics, but mostly it’s just a discussion of two books. But they’re good ones! Read more about the topic.
End song: “Mother’s Day” by Mark Linsenmayer (2007). Read about it.
Five Stars after 100+ iTunes Ratings.
#1 by Bubba Freedom Patriot on September 6, 2011 - 1:22 pm
I read that an article stated women can be Navy Seals. That’s funny.
#2 by Jonathan on September 6, 2011 - 2:52 pm
The last extract seemed to imply that men and women had complementary attributes. I agree.
I have one gripe that the female on the show did not mention a single positive attribute of men and it seems the only exploited people are females. Maids and Housewives. Exploited is an overused word which is so inclusive as to be meaningless except to reveal the feelings of the user to certain situations. e.g you could say the high powered female lawyer was exploited by advertising to work so hard or far more likely in my view, the labourer in Herland with some assigned task for the greater good (not one mention of the shades of communism guys?)
Competition and capitalism were mentioned as self evidently (male?) bad things which seems ironic for a podcast distributed over a web, using energy and countless clever inventions, including an iPad which are largely the result of both.
#3 by Mark Linsenmayer on September 6, 2011 - 3:48 pm
Look, the point is that there is a whole community of writers immersed in this women’s studies project which seems weird to outsiders. We took a brief dip into it to try to get some of what the movement is about, and didn’t really have/take time to discuss much the substance of it.
Unless you want to just dismiss it altogether (which it sounds like you do), then you’ve got to put on some armor and wade in and not get all offended as a male. I think our take on the Gilligan was ultimately comparable to the non-Christian take on Kierkegaard we exhibited back in that episode: is there anything cool to be gotten out of the reading even if you’re not signed up for the feminist project as a whole, e.g. even if you think that the differences she found are not a matter of fundamentally different sex natures that have to be accounted for? Without giving any kind of judgment on that overall project, I think there is.
#4 by Ethan Gach on September 9, 2011 - 12:44 pm
This episode was brilliant!
I only just got around to listening to it. Enjoyed every minute, thanks!
#5 by ironY on September 6, 2011 - 7:11 pm
Feminism is more a psychological study than anything else, if anything else. The division of thought based on a personal identity derived or related to sex organs/reproduction is purely arbitrary. Like all the associations of self. There are many ‘studies’ which apparently support the division. They fundamentally assume the distinction, design the study and/or interpret the data in a way that supports the preconceived notion of sex differentiated thought.
Feminism (like many, if not all political ideology), contrives absolute class based distinctions, using philosophy, sociology and ‘advocacy science’ to support, what is probably a flawed premise (sex differentiated thought).
The class based distinction or classification is critical to political power. The division is the basis of political authority.
Feminism is essentially a tertiary label of the marxism brand. It has utopian foundations, which indicates both a discord with existing conditions and possibly a deep disconnect from reality. l would go so far as to say, that no matter what the prevailing conditions are at any instant, things are exactly as they are. Inherently perfect. Of course, the psyche or ego or self or person or whatever that program is called, must have its way. It wants what it wants. From there arises what should be, which is a projection of wanting. Wanting comes from not accepting.
To this extent, l would say that these types of thought are psychological. Or self imposed. How one begins to rationally, objectively and consistently measure, model and interpret such personal scripts is anyone’s guess. Its likely impossible to do as there is no method to the ego madness. Its a problem of You-Am-I-Am-You.
Psyche is seperation.
#6 by Toby Dorn on September 6, 2011 - 11:03 pm
Are we done with the gender/identity philosophy stuff now? Please?
If you guys take suggestions it would be good to get back to Metaphysics, Logic or that potential Whitehead episode that was suggested.
#7 by Kevin Grizzard on September 7, 2011 - 1:53 am
“We took a brief dip into it to try to get some of what the movement is about, and didn’t really have/take time to discuss much the substance of it.”
I haven’t listened yet but this is exactly the kind of thing I’ve been looking for. I’m on an email list that advertised a feminist reading group, but “cis men” – a term I had to look up – were not welcome. At first I was peeved and indignant but as you say “you’ve got to put on some armor and wade in and not get all offended as a male.” It makes sense that they want the group to be a safe place for any woman not to feel inhibited by men’s presence. But I did find it unfortunate that there was no suggestion of an alternative for men who were even interested in maybe not being oppressive phallocentrists.
#8 by Kevin Grizzard on September 7, 2011 - 1:56 am
Also re: “even if you think that the differences she found are not a matter of fundamentally different sex natures that have to be accounted for” – I’m speaking out of turn not having listened yet but I’m curious if this implies she is pointing to a biological basis for the sociological differences we see in male/female roles/skills/etc., because I just read a book called “Living Dolls,” which was very concerned with biology and/or evolutionary psychology being used to prematurely justify existing stereotypes and thus a sort of fatalism. Oh, well, guess I’ll have to listen to find out
#9 by Manolito Gallegos on September 7, 2011 - 6:25 am
Since you guys asked in the episode, I want to state that this episode was quite excellent (It did not at all seem unfairly weighed against men either in my opinion) and that I’d really enjoy another episode on feminist philosophy – particularly as a “follower” of Schopenhauer, I find the mixture of parallels and dissonances between his philosophy and feminism to be quite fascinating (in both ethics and metaphysics).
By the way, I’m a Bachelor student of philosophy in Germany, and this podcast has been tremendously useful in getting a first look into topics that I was unfamiliar with and could then research on my own more effectively – so thanks for your work in doing these!
#10 by Phil C. Betamann on September 8, 2011 - 4:08 pm
Just some memories this triggers..
Years ago I used to casually read a blog called “Bitch Ph.D.” (along with “I Blame the Patriarchy” which is still around and recommended,btw) and articles, liberal websites with feminist articles and so on.
Looking at this long, complex history with its 3 whole “waves” and the various thinkers and wildly contradictory strands of thought that are all called feminist I eventually said, “Damn, feminism just amounts to bitching about how it sucks to be a woman”.
Hah yes I know, pretty vacuous and unfair.
And reading one day the played-out slogan some woman dropped in a discussion forum, “Feminism is the radical notion that women are people” I replied that feminism is boring.
Anyway one day the brilliant woman that started “Bitch Ph.D.” said the blog was coming to an end because she is at a much happier place in her life and she was over the personal emotional/psychological issues in her life that motivated her to blog. Fine, but the blog was largely a political blog and was used to champion feminist perspectives. Never mind all that then. No more need to bitch.
“I Blame the Patriarchy” comes from a lesbian woman in Austin, TX that enjoys good food, taking nature pictures and delivering the most cleverly snarky screeds on our woman hating society you can lay your jaundiced eyes upon. She says she isn’t a hater. And neither are Christians that “don’t hate the lesbian sinner, only the sin”, if you buy that.
One consistent thing with feminism is the desire for increased political, social and cultural power of women and overcoming traditional roles for women. Obvious. But they are confused as hell about what that means to themselves and each other. When they say feminism is about the empowerment of men too (since patriarchy hurts us so much too..) and we’re supposed to feel it is as much about our liberation I wonder why they call themselves feminists and not humanists.
I’ll look that up but doubt I’ll be on board with ideologues that consistently put men down and have it so much easier. Ex. Women are discouraged to succeed and be #1 said your guest?
I graduated high school in the mid ’90s and our valedictorian was a “woman of color” with parents from India and she was looked upon with great admiration by the students and was a star to the school administration. But that’ one personal example. We want studies and statistics right? Aren’t girls kicking boy’s asses in about every subject now? Or at least making huge progress like in science and math, where there used to be a gap?
I’m a working class dude and sometimes I wish I could stay at home with the kids while a woman works her ass off. But I don’t think most women are for that kind of change.
Anyway, I think an evolutionary psychology episode would be good to do and how it compares and contrasts with the social sciences, ‘pomo’ gurus like Foucault and gender feminists, etc. I’m actually not an advocate of evolutionary psychology or nature being more important than nurture, I’m just confused as you can see.
#11 by shane on September 29, 2011 - 1:50 pm
Sorry, i know this is an old post now, but i only just listened to this one today, so….
Excellent podcast. Can not recommend it enough. Several points that were made here have been added to my list of points to bring up in the couple of lectures I will be giving on feminism and ethics. Absolutely stellar intro to the topic and i look forward to more!
Thank you thank you thank you.
#12 by Mark Linsenmayer on September 30, 2011 - 8:32 am
Thanks, Shane! (And no, this is not old news yet, and continued dialog on older episodes is always welcome and typically actually noticed by us…)
#13 by Seth Paskin on September 30, 2011 - 9:20 am
Thanks Shane! If you want to see comments on an old post, check out the guy scolding us about Heidegger…:)
#14 by Nick Burbidge on October 11, 2011 - 7:46 am
Hi,
I only came across PEL a couple of months ago, and only just listened to the Feminism episode. I had not heard of Gilligan and I’m now thinking of buying her book.
I thought it was a great general introduction to the subject. Introduction is the key word here though – let’s have some more. As Seth said, the avenues that open up as to what Feminism is etc become increasingly more complex.
By the way, Herland was mentioned as a Utopia. Do you know the Faber Book of Utopias edited by John Carey? It features a section from Herland.
Many thanks,
Nick.
#15 by Seth Paskin on October 12, 2011 - 8:50 am
Thanks Nick, glad you are on board! The Gilligan book is great, probably worth a check out from your library rather than a buy as you aren’t like to keep going back to it. Make sure to find the newer version with the updated foreword.
I am unaware of the Faber book, but with The Republic and Herland in close proximity, my interest in the subject of Utopias was definitely aroused. It be worth a survey to see if any Utopias actually acknowledge the value of emotion and don’t advocate eugenics…:)
–seth
#16 by saskia on January 24, 2012 - 12:22 am
I really enjoyed this podcast. I realize we’re just dipping our toes, but you guys all did a great job and the two books were a particularly good selection. I realize you did it a couple of months ago (I’m only just now catching up) but I’ve been recommending it to everyone. I hope you do another podcast to continue where you left off in your exploration!
#17 by Mark Linsenmayer on January 24, 2012 - 12:56 am
Thanks. We do plan on some Simone de Beauvoir, which will connect this with existentialism, and perhaps our upcoming one on race will have some overlap.
If you’ve got any recommendations in this area, I’d be happy to hear them.