Okay, yes, I agree with all that. What is your point?

Journals, diaries, and the like are usually NOT of interest as "literature". — Bitter Crank

And that's patriarchy.

You can register to jstor for free to read the whole article.

Despite my wariness of your cynicism, here's an article which supports my post. This article speaks specifically about journaling as a female literary outlet, but the social structures and constraints are the same.

https://www.jstor.org/stable/24780526?read-now=1&seq=3#page_scan_tab_contents

Eternal cynic.

I somehow doubt you'd listen to any sources I provide here either.

No, that doesn't really sound like common sense to me. How many men ever had lives where they didn't have to work long hours in the fields or factories? We don't need to take this any further. If you do find the source I'd like to take a look at it. — T Clark

A) Typically throughout history laborers have not been the ones creating art.
B) A day job ends at the end of the day. Motherhood is 24/7.

They do take up a considerable amount of time and brain power!



I'm afraid I cannot find the exact quote at the moment. Though I do hope common sense would tell you that raising 7 children pre-washing machines and refrigerators while continually pregnant was a job that left little time for leisurely painting or writing War and Peace.

I heard that in a graduate lecture a few months ago. Give me a moment to see if I can find a source.

Women have never been banned from art; they have been taking drawing and painting classes for many, many years. Yet, how many great woman painters can you name? — Bitter Crank

Women were never banned from art as a quaint pastime. They were expected to give it up once married and of course never pursue it as a serious career. And we'll never know how many great female artists were simply lost to history because the art world simply would not seriously consider the work of a female artist. We would never have had Middlemarch if Mary Ann Evans hadn't called herself George.

Fun fact, one of the reasons poetry has been populated by so many females for so long is that it is one of the few arts that can be written "on the go" while having little ones playing and nagging and interrupting all day long. Picasso wouldn't have had time for all that if he'd been busy child-rearing.

I remember that thread!

As I said in a previous post, the OP isn't about why men are the way they are, it's about whether it means women are better than men. — T Clark

I think the two in this case are related: it may be that social and historical influences have (generally) made women better in this respect.

As Bitter Crank has pointed out, in other respects men have benefited from these influences.

How well do you know Bitter Crank? Of course he's trying to start of fight. — T Clark

:rofl:

If one bunch of violent bad guys is on the loose (bad) a bunch of violent good guys need to suppress them (beneficial). ISIS, al qaeda, or Boko Haram isn't going to be eliminated by a bunch of pacifists. If you want to seize a continent or two from the natives, something more vigorous than a tea party will have to be executed. — Bitter Crank

Ah, yes, endless wars and fighting. That's always so productive.

I don't really want to get too bogged down in how the "good guys" are the ones who created the "bad" ones in cases like ISIS... suffice to say that I think there are better, and yes pacifist solutions to these problems. More killing just makes more terrorists.

In any case, even if there were some cases in which (male) aggression were beneficial, it's still obvious that in most cases, historically and globally, it's very very bad news.

Yeah, well, I'm sort of attached to my kids as well, so I'm not sure it's a feminist thing in actuality, but more of a feminist thing stereotypically. — Hanover

Feminism is not just about females :)

I explained this already. Men are stronger and more aggressive.

Neither of these traits are necessarily “bad” or “good”. What is your point? — I like sushi

But isn't it bad if these traits lead to more violence and harm in the world?

Would you be comfortable for someone to characterize women negatively based on perceived behavioral and gender stereotypes? If not, you should think twice about doing it with men. — T Clark

The ratio of men to women in prison and in crime statistics isn't a stereotype, it's a fact.

I balk at suggesting men and women are unequal. But I simply do not support or understand wanting to ignore the facts of the world and pretend men and women behave the same way when they clearly do not.

It's much more productive to try and assess WHY they do and what we can do to encourage both sexes to do more of the good stuff and less of the bad.

One (maybe recent) theory is that men are more variable than women. We tend to be dull and stupid more often than females, but we also tend to be brilliant geniuses more often than females. That's why there are so many men in this esteemed philosophical forum, and so few women. The cream of the male crop has risen to the top of this particular milk pail. Consequently, men end up in prison more often and win more Nobel Prizes than women. In the middle there's not much difference. — Bitter Crank

Are YOU trying to start a fight? :P

Like you said, plenty of historical and social reasons for these things.

Kinda hard for women to get prizes and be leaders historically when they were actively banned from participating in activities that lead to such things.

Well, I just think of the fact that prison populations are predominantly male, and this gives me the impression that females are less aggressive, domineering, and violent than men are. — Wallows

That's true. It's almost impossible to tell, however, how much of that is inherent sex differences and how much social/environmental influences.

Echoing some other posters here:
The arrangement you and your mother have is only seen as unconventional in some times and places, like late 20th and early 21st century USA. But throughout history and across cultures the multi-generational household is not only normal, it's necessary. I think in the US we are seeing a return to such norms. This is due to many factors, such as nursing homes are extraordinarily expensive and also few people actually want to live there. Also, childcare is amazingly expensive and don't provide the same level of nurture and familial bonding as grandparents babysitting. Not to mention, homes are becoming more expensive to buy.

Basically, if your arrangement does not infringe, and actually enables both of you to live the rest of your lives as you desire (get married, have kids, work, have a social life, pursue hobbies, etc.) and you are dedicated to caring for her in return WHEN not IF she becomes old and will need to rely on you, then everything is as it should be.

Also, unconditional love is not the same as doing everything for someone unconditionally. A parent may love a child unconditionally, but may not have the same relationship with that child depending on circumstances. If the child becomes a murderer, a drug addict, or just a horrible and mean person, the parent may still love the child just as much, but will not be able to have the same relationship with that child.

Finally, though you have been burned, unconditional love toward a child can come (or not come) from a parent of either sex. I've seen both sexes be absolutely devoted parents or totally neglectful and abusive. Though it is true that our society generally encourages nurturing behavior more in women.

Oh, but it's so obvious how much you love to bicker with me :kiss:

Generally yes, but not when we've already established that you and I have nothing to add to each other. Anyone else might actually have something interesting to say.

I think Zhou can respond for himself.

You're repeating yourself again. Like I said before, you and I are at an impasse here, so I don't see a point in continuing the conversation with you. Sorry, but I do hope you have more fruitful discussions with someone else.

Huh? How is "I don't like it" haughty? I take it one step further and say "prove to me that it is better than any other art." I do write in a very matter-of-fact tone and I have been told it comes across as condescending - if so I am sorry, that is never my intention. But I don't think anything I said implies any type of superiority - my entire argument is that it is a given that Shakespeare (etc) is superior and I am challenging that. — ZhouBoTong

It's haughty to go from "my personal opinion is that I don't like Shakepeare" to "there is no value or no greater value in Shakespeare than my personal favorite ice cream."

What you like and what contains value are two different things.

Taking your ice cream analogy: yes, people can all have varying degrees of personal affection for any ice cream in the world, but it's also true that salad has more nutritional value no matter what your preference is.

Good and evil are not inherent to any type of being. Notice it is not people vs robots. There are good and bad people and good and bad robots. There are good and bad Americans, and good and bad people from other countries. Sometimes good people do bad things, and some people are just jerks. Sounds like Shakespeare — ZhouBoTong

Except there's a lot more to it, and a whole litany of other things in Shakespeare.

However, I DO consider all opinions on what is better sky or water to be equal. — ZhouBoTong

Yes, but which is better for drinking? Or for flying?

I'm getting sick of repeating myself, but here I go:
Michael Bay makes good art for entertainment purposes.
Shakespeare makes great art for purposes of displaying and analyzing philosophical concepts as they pertain to human nature.

And just because you can wean those things from Shakespeare doesn't mean they aren't there, because other people have. If great art is defined by whether people can find such depth in someone's work, it doesn't matter if it's their opinion or not, it's that they do find it at all.

So what we can learn from these authors is that many people have read their works and written about the experience? WHAT was actually learned? The difference between good and evil? Human nature? How to fake (not) your death so you can elope with your 13 year old girlfriend that you have known for 3 days? — ZhouBoTong

You'll just have to read it for yourself. It's an impossible task for me to list all of it here. Or, at least, it would require so much time and effort that I'm just not inclined to invest on your behalf when you're too lazy to do the work yourself.

By the way, after completing a few high school literary analyses, it will feel easy to find depth and complexity in any story (whether the author actually intended it to be read that way is a different story). — ZhouBoTong

I guess you really have no idea what you're talking about.

See if this analogy helps (I don't expect it to convince, but hopefully at least understand where we are coming from):

Tom is an Ice Cream aficionado. Tom knows more about ice cream than anyone alive. He eats ice cream twice per day. He has read everything ever written about ice cream. He knows every major company, every flavor. He knows how it is made. He knows how to serve it. And far more I can not even think of because I don't know ice cream that well.

Therefor when Tom says that "Rocky Road is the best flavor of ice cream" he is correct right? Even for someone who is allergic to nuts? What if I like fruit flavors more than chocolate?

It is not a matter of COULD be wrong. There is no wrong. — ZhouBoTong

I understand the problem: you think philosophy is just a matter of opinion.

Then riddle me this: if every opinion is equally valid and true for that person why do you bother arguing with me? My opinion is, after all, just as valid as yours (according to your view) and I (by your definition) can neither be right nor wrong. Or, I'm always right, and so are you, because we're all right all the time as long as we think we're right. So why try to convince me of anything?

I know. :)

My point is just that the jump in Shakespeare's case wasn't the one needed for a Michael Bay to suddenly be viewed as at the same level.

Regarding Shakespeare's reputation among his contemporaries:

Although he wasn't seen as the big figure he eventually became, he was considered a very fine poet among a whole slew of great poets who all happened to be writing around that time.

He did make himself popular with the masses with jokes, stage theatrics, etc, but people of educated classes came to see his plays for their simultaneous substance.

http://theshakespeareblog.com/2013/02/shakespeares-early-reputation/

Shakespeare wasn't always considered a great artist. — Baden

?

If you are going to claim that the English scholars have any authority over a non-scholar (even if it is just their opinion is more true, rather than absolute truth) I believe it is incumbent upon you to justify that authority, for the reasons I've given above. — Isaac

The fact that they are English scholars who have spent much more time and effort looking at these things than the layperson means that they are authorities on the subject. They've read more art, thought about it more, and read more analyses thereof, and are therefore in a better position to judge the merit of any given artpiece than you are.

You keep on positing that they could be wrong. Yes. That's possible. But it's far more likely that the people who've only read a couple of Shakespeare plays, didn't care for it much and thus never gave it much more thought have no idea what they're talking about when they want to dismiss his work.

What Baden said:

Those who have argued that Shakespeare is a great writer have provided millions of words of evidence why. It's not impossible they're wrong but they're winning the argument. — Baden

:cheer:

Does that now make Christianity objectively true? — Isaac

We're not talking about whether everything Shakespeare said was true.

No, I haven't. Never seriously studied English literature.

Any interest in actually addressing the argument, or is there anything else about my academic career you'd like to know first? — Isaac

It's just pretty obvious that you're talking about things you don't understand. If you ever had studied English, or given any time to reading analyses by people who have, you wouldn't be saying it's "just their opinion."

I have already, repeatedly, pointed to sources which could enlighten you on the subject. That would clear up the argument. But are you actually interested in seeing the proof or do you just want to stubbornly maintain your own unwarranted position?

It's like you've never done a serious literary analysis in your life. Maybe you haven't?

I see this is a "do as I say and not as I do" moment for ya.

Oh dear. I see you're thoroughly confused now.

But I'm afraid I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain to you all the times and ways in which you did say what you are now denying you said.

Sorry, but arguing with someone like you is just a waste of time.

you claim that I think that there's no way to judge/measure works, morals, etc. or the next time you claim that I think all works/moral stances/etc. are equal. — Terrapin Station

You claimed that. Not me.

But that's just your MO.

Terrapin: "X"
Other person: "Not X"
Terrapin: "I never said X! How dare you say I said X? You're so dumb for thinking I said X. I said X which is totally different from X."

:rofl: