From: "Kelley" <kwalker2 at gte.net>
> > >personally, i think this is a male thing. i'm convinced by others
arguments
> > >all the time. maybe not right away, but eventually.
===========
So is genderization a hindrance to ISS's emerging in, say, non-work,
non-economic contexts under actually existing capitalism? Does gender
preclude ISS's proliferability; one of those meta-communicative blind
spots Luhmann talked about in his debate with H.? How would we map
defeasibility across genders and of course, resistence to
defeasibility? How does adversariality effect willingness to revise
beliefs within/across genders and what role does aging play in the
process?
At 05:44 AM 7/31/01 +1100, Rob Schaap wrote:
> >C'mon Kelley! What the hell kinda gratuitous sexism is that?!
> i was doing it in order to get a rise out of carrol! but, speaking
to the
> broader literature, there is empirical research to suggest that
gender is
> operative here: in the willingness of women to admit they've been
persuaded
> by an argument, whereas men are less willing to do so. (c.f,
belenky et al
> and carol gilligan)
========
I had a female philosophy prof. who Habermas[ed] Gilligan and really
Gilligan[ed] H. Scales fell from my eyes when we got into
interconstitutivity and the demise of the Cartesian model of the
Cogito. She then stated that the most feminine epistemology
articulated by a man was Buddha [and she was not a Buddhist nor a
'pomo'].
Ian