Ethical foundations of the left

Ian Murray seamus2001 at home.com
Mon Jul 30 14:06:45 PDT 2001


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



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list