From: "E.M. Durflinger" <bc05319-AT-binghamton.edu> Date: Sat, 6 Jul 1996 09:09:44 +0000 Subject: Re: Rape Again, I find it extremely difficult to attempt to discuss your points when you persist in engaging in basic fallacies left and right! To wit-- > > I never said that sexuality was not constructed, you seem to be either > conflating or equivocating. Why must I show that if sex is just sex, than > the construction of males as violent has nothing to do with gender. Being > male is being gendered!!!! What I take your point to be, however, is that > I must show that haveing a penis and bveing socially constructed to be > violent are unrelated. That is a non-sequitur! As hunter-gatherers, women > were kept in the "house" because they carried children, etc. Men went > hunting, thus engaging in violence. From this simple > biological-environemntal matrix, genders arose. It probably has a lot to > do with hgow we evolved from apes and became meat eaters which probablyt > occured beofre homo sapiens appeared on the scence. Classical example of the hasty generalization. From what set of observations are you making this inductive leap? Further, in order for your point to work , you have to be able to disprove counter-examples. If I find one culture that doesnt' behave in this way, then what? How is it exactly that we have transcended the situation? > >This is a phenomenological/empirical claim; the question is, *why* do > >men do this? If we are talking genealogies of desire here, which is what the > >construction vs. biologism debate seems to be doing, then one needs > >to make some observations about where this perspective comes from. I > >mean, this really says no more than "Most serial killers find their > >knives and guns to be their focus of power and women to be their > >target of choice; it's not surprising that serial killers therefore > >kill women using knives and guns." > > But the knife and the gun is just an extension of the penis. I think you > missed the boat here. > My point here was that your original statement had no explanatory value; rather, it was a classic example of circular argumentation--your conclusion is contained in your premises. "Men find the penis to be a locus of signification; therefore they use it in significant ways" is equivalent to "the team lost the game becuase they scored fewer points than the other team." >I'm sorry but there are no undefined terms. I am not interested in >the abnormal buyt the normal. The seriel killer is abnormal and >should not be the way he/she is. How that person repsonds to killing >someone is a product of bad socialization or faulty wiring. In any >case, I am open to {snip} You must be using some strange new use of the word 'normal' that I am not accustomed to if rape is seen as normal in your view, since your analysis seems to depend quite a lot on using phenomenological evidence gleaned from the analysis of rape to discuss the 'normal' situation of 'man.' ///Connor _________________________________________________________ E.M. Connor Durflinger Philosopher for Hire "Have Forestructures, Will Travel" Reverend, Universal Life Church bc05319-AT-binghamton.edu PIC Program at B.U. _________________________________________________________
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005