[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 278 KB, 1920x1080, 240331-2.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4364861 No.4364861 [Reply] [Original]

>Is logic masculine? Is women's lack of interest in the "hard core" philosophical disciplines of formal logic and semantics symptomatic of an inadequacy linked to sex? Is the failure of women to excel in pure mathematics and mathematical science a function of their inability to think rationally?
>Andrea Nye undermines the assumptions that inform these questions, assumptions such as: logic is unitary, logic is independenet of concrete human relations, and logic transcends historical circumstances as well as gender. In a series of studies of the logics of historical figures--Parmenides, Plato, Aristotle, Zeno, Abelard, Ockham, and Frege--she traces the changing interrelationships between logical innovation and oppressive speech strategies, showing that logic is not transcendent truth but abstract forms of language spoken by men, whether Greek ruling citizens, or scientists.
I must say this topic is quite fascinating. Do you know of any critiques of formal logic from queer or African-American perspective? I think this field has a great potential.

>> No.4364896

>>4364861
ehh.. fuck gender studies. all that feminism does is perpetuate the notion that men and women are different. if you're curious about how gender has functioned in the past, you might have something worth studying, but in asking about contemporary critiques you'd be perpetuating the problem.

>> No.4364910

>oppressive speech strategies

ha ha, get fucked

>> No.4364922

>muh persecution

>> No.4364954

>In a series of studies
This made me laugh, because I imagine her "studies" to be just skimming them while mumbling about the patriarchy and not really understanding what any of it means

>> No.4364965

>>4364954
it's good that you just imagined that and assumed it was the truth and then now are probably using that evidence that you just imagined to support your existing beliefs about feminism

>> No.4364969

>>4364896
>all that feminism does is perpetuate the notion that men and women are different.
Which, of course, isn't true.

>> No.4364991

>>4364965
Are you seriously going to try to defend this bullshit book? Please go on. I understand you probably agree with the crowd that this book mindlessly panders to, but it's a book about how logic is/was oppressing women. Go read a couple of reviews for this dreck. You couldn't pay me to read this

>> No.4365029

Give us a quote from the fucking book faggot so we can accurately and dispassionately critique something rather than slinging assumptions and preconceptions.
What the fuck are you even trying to do? You seem to have just blithely swallowed the idea that logic itself can be subject to critique, in which case logic means nothing, in which case go suck a bag of dicks.

>> No.4365035

>Do you know of any critiques of formal logic from queer or African-American perspective?

No. I have absolutely no respect for this field. Now fuck off, troll.

>> No.4365037

>>4364861
wait, what? i don't even.. I had a year of formal logic in university, i have no idea what that even means...

>> No.4365039

I agree that logic is patriarchal, and it always has been.

Men don't realize it but many other things taken as "gender neutral" are actually exclusionary towards women. Even the format of 4chan is anti-woman, for example.

>> No.4365045

>>4364861

>Do you know of any critiques of formal logic from queer or African-American perspective?

Some, actually.

Peter Tatchell's article "Homophobia and Intellect" deals with this, where he calls logic "homophobic" and "problematic".

bell Hooks' book "Das Racis" deals with this, in the chapter on the history and development of philosophical disciplines and logic, where she says "logic? DAS RACIS"

>> No.4365048

>>4364861
>Things I dont understand is oppressive

This is modern feminism, and if OP falls for this please stop posting

>> No.4365050
File: 757 KB, 1198x1200, 1375241707847.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4365050

>this thread
>people taking a post that asks whether formal logic is sexist seriously
You guys are even dumber than I thought.

>> No.4365053

>>4364969
yeah, that's exactly what I meant to say. the biological differences between men and women aren't statistically significant to warrant a shift in approach toward either sex.

>> No.4365061

taoists figured this out like 3000 years ago and noone got butthurt over it back then

>> No.4365066

If op correct, then there's no need to have any mind of racially or gendered 'critique' of any kind, idiotic

>> No.4365068

>>4364861
>logic is sexist/racist/homphobic/transphobic

We all knew it would happen eventually

>> No.4365069

Here's a quote from the book:

>Desperate, lonely, cut off from the human community which in many cases has ceased to exist, under the sentence of violent death, wracked by desires for intimacy that they do not know how to fulfill, at the same time tormented by the presence of women, men turn to logic.

Pretty funny.

It's also playground-tier criticism similar to "haha ur a nerdy virgem!"

>> No.4365078

>>4365069
>In the desperate hour of need men turn to... logic

No! D-dont... stop... thinking, it's not good for you.

>> No.4365081

>>4365069

>tfw there are people right now who believe this

>> No.4365085

>>4364861
Postmodernism is dying

>> No.4365095

>>4364896
gender studies usually talks about the construct of men and women not the biological realities. the construct of men and women are clearly very different.

>> No.4365097

>>4365069
>men turn to logic
isn't it good?

>> No.4365101

>gender all of the sudden doesn't mean sex and is supposed to be the social constructs of male and female

I don't get how the fuck this started and how people can just hijack language and change what words mean whenever they want

>> No.4365107

>>4365069
How does she elaborate on this? Because the feeling I get is that she talks about lonely awkward guys with poor social skills who rationalize their shitty position in life with faulty 'logic', i.e. "I'm lonely because all people are idiots and don't get me" (fedoras, basically).

Removed from context it's a severely moronic quote. But right now I'll give her the benefit of the doubt, until someone might provide a contextual explanation of it.

>> No.4365112

I just found this on /pol/, pretty good for laughs. It's kinda in alignment for this topic:

Tumblisms:Headmates
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hR8ADuqrGx8 [Embed]

Tumblrisms: Thin Privilege
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=192mLlOBzvE

Tumblrisms: CIS-Scum
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F86ox8LyEOI [Remove]

Tumblrisms: White Privilege
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7c0a2oy5SoA [Embed]

>> No.4365113

>>4365101
>change what words mean

gender studies didn't do that, culture did it when it start to refer to women as one way and men as another way and expect different things from them that either of them could do in reality (with some exceptions).

>> No.4365115

>>4365113
and this started about 20+ years ago? Because that's when the meaning of the word really changed. That doesn't sound right

>> No.4365118

>>4364861
i cant tell if i love her or hate her. i probably hate her.

queer theory is a part of sex theory, and afro american theory is a part of race theory. queer theory can be both similar and different to feminism in the sense that they both look for accurately portrayed characters, but feminism looks at going against gender roles to define characters where queer theory assumes non-heterosexual readings and uses these gender roles to define orientation later on in the story. im more with feminism in that these gender roles shouldnt define someone sexually or how well they can do something. queer theory can be good in modern literature, but really i dont find orientation to make much a difference in a story unless the author was specifically writing about queer community

>> No.4365119

>>4365112
>start watching the thin privilege one
>annoying cunt on a megaphone preaching about racism(is white)
oh boy these are going to be great

>> No.4365123

>>4365115
>Because that's when the meaning of the word really changed.

that's not true, tho. what makes you come to that conclusion? people as far back as nietzsche spoke about "women in the abstract"

>> No.4365129

Prenatal testosterone.

>> No.4365130

>>4365119
I watched the one about headmates, that one is great also CIS-scum.

(sage)

>> No.4365134

What is up with all the /r9k/ faggotry lately?

>> No.4365142

http://www.hastac.org/blogs/ari-schlesinger/2013/11/26/feminism-and-programming-languages

>> No.4365155

>>4365134
I was wondering the same thing

>> No.4365173

>>4365112
>White Privilege video
>give black people your inheritance(all white people have inheritances) because your white ancestors were all slavers and it's impossible to be white and not be involved with slavery.

>> No.4365179
File: 32 KB, 549x735, LELbron.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4365179

>>4364896
>>4364969
>>4365053
>men and women aren't different
This board never ceases to make me laugh.

>> No.4365182

>>4365039
give an example within logic

>> No.4365192

>>4365134
the trick was making you think that /r9k/ wasn't the entire board all along

>> No.4365203

>>4365182
the principle of bivalence, i.e. the axiom of classical logic that says that for any truthapt expression, either it or its negation must be true is highly masculine and opressive in nature.
it mimics the states of the male phallus, in that everything is forced to be either true or untrue, just as male genitalia can be either hard or not-hard.
this is why classical logic is phallocentric and inherently opressive. a gender-neutral logic is one where the law of the excluded middle is not derivable. one example is intuitionistic logic, which is great because women reason a lot through their intuition.

>> No.4365206
File: 39 KB, 255x238, 1333249362768.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4365206

>>4365112
oh my fucking god, how have i never heard of headmates before?

this is too good. thank you

>> No.4365209

>>4365039
>Even the format of 4chan is anti-woman, for example.

HOLY SHIT MY MIND IS BLOWN

>> No.4365211
File: 271 KB, 1280x1911, 1383724211029.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4365211

>>4365203
1/10

>> No.4365214

>>4365211
yea i suck at trolling

>> No.4365215
File: 19 KB, 573x393, sadfrog.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4365215

>tfw no Ashly Burch gf

>> No.4365216

>>4365173
The worst thing is probably that it would probably take white people approx one generation to get it back.

>> No.4365219

How do you critique logic from outside? I can only imagine something like "hueueueuhrrrhheurh fuck you fuck you"

>> No.4365220

>>4365142
So basically a 'feminist' formal system is just a non-hierarchical one? Isn't this just Deluze's rhizome except targeted at gender specifically and narrowly for no good reason?

Even certain formal systems are oppressive, in so far as their form creates the dynamic of their power, they are empty of content. A woman has traditionally been bottom, while a man top, but it has been applied equally to workers and bosses, blacks and whites, subjects and kings, homos and heteros. In fact, the hierarchal system could be said to create these things, to the extent oppression shapes the self-identity of the victim.

So why is gender narrowed out when the form itself is larger than gender and in fact generates gender? Is it because feminism is a dead ideology in the west where rich white kids who have no idea about anything think they can be theorists?

>> No.4365226

>>4365173
Well she's right. However it also applies to pretty much every race, ethnicity and culture today, so I'd say it evens out.

>> No.4365227

>>4365069
That's hilarious. I can't believe how stupid this is.
And it's accepted as real scholarship?
Krishnu have mercy. Odin save us.

>> No.4365233

>>4365226
but I'm a 1st generation American with Irish parents. My ancestors were slaves first.

>> No.4365237

>>4364896

But men and women are different, both biologically and in terms of social standing. It's definitely a subject worth looking into, unless you just want to ignore a bulk of historical context.

>> No.4365238

>>4365233
I'm pretty sure that somewhere back there your ancestors gorcrd someone to work for free (and that person might just be an ancestor as well).

>> No.4365248

onionring must be spinning in her grave

>> No.4365250

Wow, these are gold.

>> No.4365253

shit, i might cop this. doesn't seem like she's criticizing logic so much as she's criticizing how logic has been used by irrational men.

>> No.4365257

>>4365253
are you serious?

>> No.4365258

>>4365253
If anything, you'll have a handy joke book full of pure gold.

>> No.4365261

>>4365253
Right, that's what I made of this quote too:

>Desperate, lonely, cut off from the human community which in many cases has ceased to exist, under the sentence of violent death, wracked by desires for intimacy that they do not know how to fulfill, at the same time tormented by the presence of women, men turn to logic.

But of course a bunch of fedoras jumped to conclusions based on a quote removed from context. Can anybody provide with her explanation following that quote?

>> No.4365267

>>4365261
the quote makes things pretty obvious, dude. for any possible context.

>> No.4365274

>>4365267
Not really. And I'm still curious about how she elaborates on this statement.

>> No.4365276

>>4365274
well im sure frege and occam were sad freaks, and ludwig was batshit crazy, but still this quote unveils the nature of her work. you cannot possibly have read this quote and respect the author on an academic level.

>> No.4365292

From the same book:
"If economics was logical necessity for the Marxists, the science of nature was logical necessity for the Nazis. In nature, it was clear enough that the fittest and best survived, whereas dying and degenerate races were destroyed. The applications of logic to action that Frege had promised came readily to hand. If Jews are a mongrel race, they must be exterminated. 'A thought like a hammer' demanded instant obedience to the dictates of logic."

>> No.4365294

>>4365276
You sound like she hit too close to home.

>> No.4365299

>>4365276
I'm not paying her any academic respect, but neither am I interested in disregarding anything she says because of a quote out of context. If her point is that logic = opressive or whatever, then yes, that's insane. But I still haven't seen anything to prove that this is exactly what she's saying.

>> No.4365300

>>4365292
She's right, but let's see how our /p9lk/ friends react to it

>> No.4365316

>>4365294
nah, im not actually offended by it. but it makes me not take the author seriously, for obvious reasons.
im in a masters programm for philosophy of language and logic, there are more girls than boys, there are even chinese and black people.
of course some of the people are weird nerds, but that percentage isnt higher than in lets say eco, law or biology courses. these are normal people with an interest for theoretical and abstract thought, not a bunch of social rejects.
her claims have no substance and they arent interesting.
the second quote just serves to show on what level this shit is.

>> No.4365319

>>4365292
This is kinda indicative of that she isn't hating logic, but the way distorted and abused logic is used as justification for shitty behaviour. I.e., the "lonely and desperate guys turn to logic"-quote really is about fedoras rationalizing why they can't get laid.

>> No.4365331

>>4365299
>If her point is that logic = opressive or whatever, then yes, that's insane.
Don't you think the treatment of the conclusions of "logic" as ultimately being unapproachable can result in oppression? Doesn't every asshole in history (slavers, fascists, etc) use "logic" to justify atrocity?

>> No.4365346

>tfw women finally admit feeling repressed by truth

>> No.4365343

>>4365331
Of course, but usually that's logic built on false premises, such as 'women are inherently inferior to men'. Logic in and on itself isn't oppressive, but it can be used that way. But most people here seem to believe that she's claiming logic is intrinsically a bad thing.

>> No.4365345

>>4365331
doesnt everyone use logic to justify anything everywhere always? and is that something we want to move away from?

modus pones killed all the jews!

>> No.4365363

>>4365112
>which is ironic because it was a colt 22
mfw i have no face because i'm dead and now exist solely as pure transcendent laughter

>> No.4365365

ITT: misconceptions of Logic of ignorant and uninformed men who couldn't even construct a valid syllogism

>> No.4365373
File: 28 KB, 216x324, thissideof.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4365373

>>4365319
>some people use logic to do sums, and some people use it for naughtier purposes

It seems like an utterly banal thing to write a book about

>> No.4365374

>>4365365
>beleives logic still has anything to do with syllogisms
lel

>> No.4365377

>>4365316
>>4365343
>>4365345
>there are more girls than boys, there are even chinese and black people [in my logic classes]
>ergo, the claim that logic can be oppressive to certain genders, sexes, and/or ethnicities is false

You (person I'm quoting) seem to be implying this but I'd say that doesn't follow. I also think you're conflating what she means when she's talking about logic (thought in which people construct conclusions to justify actions) with what you think of the field of logic. More succinctly, to quote >>4365343
>Logic in and on itself isn't oppressive, but it can be used that way
So, from what I'm reading in this thread, she's saying that logic is not an objective metaphysical realm of facts divorced from the human subject, but rather people treat logic this way, and then the mere act of trying to be logical becomes an action of power against others. Logic becomes a mask. Here's a good example, even if it is a troll post >>4365346

>> No.4365385

>>4365373
I don't dispute that, she might as well put Captain Obvious as the co-author of the book. But I don't like when people jump to conclusions and diminish the importance of feminism

>> No.4365398

>>4365377
>You (person I'm quoting) seem to be implying this
i was not.
i beleive youre projecting your own very reasonable opinions onto her quotes. everything ive heard so far, both of the quotes aswell as the pretext in the OP is pretty much bullshit

>> No.4365408

>>4365365
Didn't Shakespeare write a really famous syllogism - "To be or not to be" I think?

>> No.4365412

>>4365398
>i was not.
My apologies.
>i beleive youre projecting your own very reasonable opinions onto her quotes.
Well, based solely on the posted snippets, I think what I said fits, but I might be wrong. I find it interesting, anyway. Isn't this basically what Adorno says about culture (never read him but saw a neat synopsis on /lit/ a little while ago)?

>> No.4365415

>>4365408
thats not a syllogism

>> No.4365418

>>4365377
>Here's a good example, even if it is a troll post
I was quite serious. If you abandon logic truth goes out the window. You have no means by which to judge statements true or untrue. Not that I can't imagine people like that to call logical truth an oppressive masculine concept and make the case for an intuitive 'feeling of truth' and that falsification is inherently violent or rapey or something.

>> No.4365420
File: 57 KB, 401x600, $_20.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4365420

>>4365415
Gud fellow u hav been rused

>> No.4365436

>>4365412
ill just go through the OP and tell you what i think of it.
>Is logic masculine?
what is that even supposed to mean lol
> Is women's lack of interest in the "hard core" philosophical disciplines of formal logic and semantics symptomatic of an inadequacy linked to sex? Is the failure of women to excel in pure mathematics and mathematical science a function of their inability to think rationally?
there exists no such lack of interest or such failure, no reasonable person will claim women to be in some way inadequate for excelling in research in these fields
>Andrea Nye undermines the assumptions that inform these questions, assumptions such as: logic is unitary, logic is independenet of concrete human relations, and logic transcends historical circumstances as well as gender.
and these assumptions shes arguing against are held by whom, exactly, if i may ask?
> In a series of studies of the logics of historical figures--Parmenides, Plato, Aristotle, Zeno, Abelard, Ockham, and Frege--she traces the changing interrelationships between logical innovation and oppressive speech strategies, showing that logic is not transcendent truth but abstract forms of language spoken by men,
now this is obviously bullshit. this historical endeavour just makes it obvious that she is not actually informed when it comes to this topic and would rather make ad hominem arguments against dead people in order to later somehow infer conclusions in the philosophy of logic. (some kind of intuitionism that is not in any sense her own idea and i also doubt she fully understands, based on the things she writes.

>> No.4365439

>>4365418
>You have no means by which to judge statements true or untrue.
and you think logic will give you these means?
maybe you should read up on the subject matter

>> No.4365440

>>4365292

Makes a mistake there.

Scientific racism was never well regarded among Darwinists because it wasn't scientific. It was anthropological, not biological, which incidentally has yet to obtain the title of non-hyphenated science.

>> No.4365444

>>4365374
You're an uninformed quack and your belief that Logic has nothing to do with syllogisms proves it quite nicely.

Aristotle invented the concept of necessity after reflecting upon the internal structure of his syllogisms; a valid inference pattern of his syllogisms flows logically in the virtue of their form just as a modern-day [valid] argument of Predicate Logic.

>> No.4365453

>>4365444
you will learn about aristotelian logic in history of phil classes, not in logic classes. it was historically influential, but is now completely irrelevant for contemporary logic and philosophy of language.

>> No.4365460

>>4365377

Math is an act of discovery. Yes, you can tweak the parameters to your taste, but that doesn't mean that two will get to different conclusions. If you really want to look at thorough debunking of post-structuralism and postmodernism, all you have to look at is philosophy of math.

>> No.4365469

>>4365460
ironically, in the philosophy of mathematics and logic, constructivist positions (most of them intuitionist) are extremely dominant in our days.

>> No.4365475

>>4365453
You seem to be missing the point. No one here is talking about where you would or wouldn't encounter Aristotelian Logic. All that I am saying is that modern Logic investigates more or less the same concept of "necessity" and "logical form" that possess the valid syllogisms of Aristotelian Logic, and any calculi for that matter.

It's one of the central topics of Logic. Don't tell me you are disagreeing with this.

And there are concise expositions of Aristotelian Logic in most Introduction books to Logic and Logic lasses for that matter.

>> No.4365481

>>4365475
>modern Logic investigates more or less the same concept of "necessity" and "logical form" that possess the valid syllogisms of Aristotelian Logic
lol
thats one stretched out "more or less" you got there buddy!
>And there are concise expositions of Aristotelian Logic in most Introduction books to Logic and Logic lasses for that matter.
maybe in the us, but i seriously doubt it

>> No.4365496

Read Spivak, OP.

More than logic, i think we have to deal with epistemological colonialism and the negation of the Other in 1st world academy.


That's because of HOW the concept of Other is constructed on 1st world western philosophy, and the consequences of it are massive.

>> No.4365575

>>4365436
>there exists no such lack of interest or such failure, no reasonable person will claim women to be in some way inadequate for excelling in research in these fields
But... it happened in this thread

>> No.4365578

>>4365469

Constructivism is useful pragmatically, because of the difficultly of computing difficult problems. But as an ontology empiricism explains math better. Such as why we can build machines that agree with us, and why math systems that have been discovered independently usually only differ in how they're presented. Constructivism/intuitionism is too anthromorphic, and due to the difficulty of computing problems in a system before using it, it and structuralism can be seen as a sort of step ladder to empiricism, but which can miss the what's actually going on by only focusing on the ladder and not where it's leading.

Language, of course, can be seen the same way.

>> No.4365586
File: 8 KB, 320x199, 1386955156303.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4365586

>>4365039
>Even the format of 4chan is anti-woman, for example.

>> No.4365607 [DELETED] 
File: 37 KB, 276x371, 1386841174540.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4365607

(book)⇒¬(retarded)⇔(written by emotionalist).
T: ∀books.

>> No.4365608

>>4365112

My headmate is Tasha Yar the instant before she's killed by that nigger goo monster on Vagra II. All she does it scream in horror.

Anyone who claims I can't have a fictional headmate eternally locked at one moment in fictional time is a nonfictional shitlord.

>> No.4365614

>Man evolved to provide for his family, and by extension society
>Woman evolved to care for her family, and by extension society
Why is this hard to understand

>> No.4365618
File: 37 KB, 276x371, 1386841174540.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4365618

(book)⇒¬(retarded)⇔¬(written by emotionalist).
T: ∀books.

>> No.4365642

>>4365614

>implying monogamy
Change it to group.
Also, just so you don't get it twisted, the environment of evolutionary adaptation has changed dramatically.
There are other forms of adaptation that aren't evolutionary.
So we have no reason to act like our ancestors.

>> No.4365643

>>4365608
how does it feel to be sympathy fucked by data?

>> No.4365656

>>4365618

>implying we have a framework for understanding emotions
>implying it's not a scientific question

>> No.4365659

>>4365642
>implying civilizations have ever managed to be built on the back of polygamous marriage arrangements.

>> No.4365663
File: 20 KB, 150x200, Mandarin.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4365663

>>4365656
>implying intuition and instinct are not those very frameworks

>> No.4365666

>>4365642
>the environment of evolutionary adaptation has changed dramatically
No it hasn't.

>> No.4365669

>>4365659
>implying ireland doesn't exist
you will not do well here anon

>> No.4365682

>>4365669
>ireland
>not monogamous by the time a stable civilization grew
That's cute anon. Very new age.
>you will not do well here anon
I've done well by it long before pseudo-intellectuals started abusing the board to discuss leftist/humanities politics.

>> No.4365688

>>4365643

>sympathy fucked
>implying data didn't mechanically rape my headmate with his fully-functional cybernetic cock

You shitlords think that just because Tasha invited Data to her chambers, told him all about her abusive childhood, and then led him into her bedroom she gave consent? Honestly?

UGH, FUCK YOU FOR TRIGGERING ME

>> No.4365691

>>4365682
>of course legal tracts don't exist from 700AD through to the Elizabethan era documenting the practice and legality of such marriage
>those are just ruses the hippy Irish made up
I see where you're going with this line of redirection anon, please continue to enlighten me.

>> No.4365695

>>4365691
Sure thing anon. The Irish were totally bigamists by the time they had stable agrarian settlements. I'm sure you'll be able to back that up by say pointing out a historian not affiliated with New Age spiritualism.

>> No.4365703

>>4365688
FUCK YOU FOR CONFLATING DATA'S BEAUTIFUL OTHERKIN SOUL WITH HIS HUMANMALE GENDERED APPEARANCE THE OTHERSKIN HAD EVERY RIGHT TO KILL YOU LOL KARMASABITCH

>> No.4365704

>>4365691
I know in Celtic Ireland around 0 AD, give or take a few centuries, the Irish were monogamous. I don't see how that could evolve into polygamy, especially with the introduction of Christianity.

>> No.4365705

interest in philosophy and semantics is pretty effeminate for a men

>> No.4365712

>>4365704
Biblical interpretation of Brehon law. A brief intro (you too >>4365695)
http://www.ucc.ie/celt/marriage_ei.html

>> No.4365729

>>4365669
>irish civilization

lel

>> No.4365740

>>4365666

you don't know what that means do you

>> No.4365749

>>4365712
Interesting read. First time i've heard of a decent argument that anything near a polygamous society could have gotten past small settlement/nomadic status so props for that.
Though from a cursory lookup, the law he mentions "Cáin Lánamna" includes unions that were sexual but significantly not property and/or progeny-based which I would argue are two of the three major bases of civilization, blood-relations, property and agrarian farming. Sounds sort of like lawful mistresses though I obviously haven't read indepth into it.

>> No.4365760

>>4365703

Omg, PLEASE show me where I EVER committed any cyberphobia, you rape-enabling shit.....

(OH and btw, Data might be an otherkin -- which is great -- but he gave up ANY RIGHTS HE HAD as an otherkin by CHOOSING to identify as a cis-gendered WHITE NON-JEWISH HUMANMALE. He could have chosen to be an Xyrilian-identifying sixth gendered J'naii transwarp galactickin chained to a human-built cybertronic brain, but HE DIDN'T, SWEETHEART :) TOO BAD.)

Now if you're done, I'm going to brew some tea and clean my face BECAUSE I'VE BEEN CRYING SO HARD trying to block out your ABUSIVE SHIT and Tasha's constant screaming.

>> No.4365773
File: 55 KB, 320x240, tve3886-19871107-322.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4365773

>>4365760

#rekt #omg #embarrassed4u

>> No.4365781

>>4365659

Monogamy was an obsession by land owners and royals for inheritance rules.
To paraphrase a peasant explaining to a lord why he'd marry someone who had a child by another father:
Wouldn't you want to know the cow works before you buy it?

In a service economy, where human capital matters most, and inheritances matter less, of course divorce rates go up. No one needs it.

>> No.4365783
File: 794 KB, 658x1017, 1386959694708.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4365783

>>4365760
>implying tasha wasn't asking for it

>> No.4365791

>>4365783
>tfw you realise data looks like furio from the sopranos

>> No.4365795

>>4365781
>Monogamy was an obsession by land owners and royals for inheritance rules.
Not really. The Babylonian, Assyrian, ancient Egyptians etc ruling classes were not all monogamous but their laws made sure it was the norm for all but the powerful who could ignore it.
It's always hard to argue for the reasoning behind such old laws but I would say it's because polygamy, as a general rule, is much more prone to instability than monogamy.

>> No.4365803

>>4365781
>"Monogamy was an obsession by land owners and royals for inheritance rules."
>ignores libraries of evidence showing that a preponderance of ancient and primitive cultures (especially germans and northern europeans) were culturally monogamous

Try reading some primary source texts, like Tacitus' On Britain and Germany, faggot. Maybe then you'll stop vomiting up all the revisionist Marxist bullshit you've been spoonfed.

>> No.4365806
File: 503 KB, 1067x594, Hueniks.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4365806

>>4364861
Is the girl in OP's picture Hueniks???
if not, who is she???

>> No.4365808

>>4364896
>>4365053
The differences in the development and behavior of the brain is noticeably different between both sexes. These differences begins while the person is still a fetus (around 26 weeks). The last study went over about a thousand people and found that yes, the female and male brain are different. The question isn't "Are men and women different?" Because we know that answer, the question is "Is that difference meaningful?" or "Why does this difference exist?"

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/different-brain-wiring-in-men-women-could-explain-gender-differences/
http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2013/11/27/1316909110.abstract

>> No.4365818

Well.... what if men suck at generosity. And want to keep everything to themselves.

>> No.4365820

>>4365803

While I agree that this guy is an idiot: >>4365781

Few ancient people practiced monogamy. One of the reasons Tacitus admired Germans is that they all shared this Hellenistic cultural marital practice, regardless of class or rank.

>> No.4365826

>>4365820

PS. In fact -- just to prove how ignorant that original Anon was -- the few Germans who WEREN'T monogamous were the tribal leaders.

>> No.4365828

>>4365808
>the question is "Is that difference meaningful?"
True. It's not the question the gender studies crowd put forward however.
They prefer "How do we do away with the difference?", as if it's implicit that it is even desirable, or even "Let's categorically state that it doesn't matter, lobbying dogmatic quota-based egalitarianism is more important than questions".

>> No.4365830

>>4365806
http://www.youtube.com/user/HAWPOfficial
a gamer gurl

>> No.4365833

>>4365808

>implying science isn't a patriarchal, white male-biased discipline

How else could you explain those findings? Or any of the work done on race and intelligence by that white-enabling patriarchal monster Bruce Lahn?

>> No.4365834

>>4365828
>True. It's not the question the gender studies crowd put forward however.
really? have you read a book by cordelia fine? it seems like you like talking out of your ass

>> No.4365835

>>4365833
>How else could you explain those findings

I don't know. If it was published in a science journal then the freaking scientific method.

>> No.4365836

>>4365830
>http://www.youtube.com/user/HAWPOfficial
Woa. They look a bit similar dont they?
Maybe it's just me.

Thanks for the sause btw.