27 June 2007

Fwd: from Lawrence Pub Philosophy Meeting, next Sunday AT 6.30PM:The new female

--- In philomadridgroup@yahoogroups.co.uk, "philomadrid"
<philomadrid@...> wrote:

Dear Friends,

Thank you for all your private and not so private compliments and
encouragement on the way these meeting are developing. I am very happy
that you enjoy these meetings, I certainly do.

Next Sunday we are dealing with what is by now an old subject: Male
and Female revolutions. I'm sure this will bring back memories of past
meetings and an opportunity for new ideas.

The yahoo group is up and running, the address is:
or send email to the following address to subscribe.

Since some people are still having problems receiving emails I should
be most grateful if you can pass the message.

FINALLY; don't forget the exhibition visit on Saturday.

Take care


SUNDAY 6.30pm START at Molly Malone's Pub, probably downstairs, but
just in case there is no football on go to the very back of the pub,
then turn left and left again!

philomadrid@... tel 606081813


Pub Molly Malone, c/ Manuela Malasaña, 11, Madrid 28004
metro: <Bilbao> : buses: 21, 149, 147

The new female - male revolution.

Every generation needs to make a name for itself. When we think about
it we can see why this should be the case.

The obvious reason is that each generation lacks its own experience as
an entity in a society. Hence the need for a generation to have its
own coat of arms, so to speak, is quite important. The generation
that was conscripted to fight the second world war developed its own
identity, usually in the form of baby boomers. In the sixties we find
two distinct identities. The identity following the successes of the
Liverpool four and the protest marches against the Vietnam war. This
generation may be summed up as the come-back generation: they just
cannot stop those compilation albums from appearing at a moment's notice.

However, what is group identity? In our case we are looking at the
male and female groups. We are familiar with personal identity, even
if we cannot articulate what it exactly, but does group identity
follow the same principles? One attribute we ascribe to personal
identity is uniqueness of character. In fact uniqueness of character
is a must for personal identity.

If we are to have any revolutions for males and/or females we really
must settle this little matter of identity. But the price we pay is of
course an identity paradox. A female or male revolution presupposes a
group made up of individual males and females. But if we accept the
uniqueness principle for individual identity we either have to abuse
the meaning of uniqueness or speak of a male or a female groups are
just empty words.

Let me put it another way; are you prepared to say that as a person
there is nothing to distinguish you from the rest of your gender
population? Never mind your body, just think of the person.

So before we can have a revolution we need a movement, and before we
have a movement we need a common cause between individuals. A male
revolution and a female revolution still need to ask and answer the
questions: Who are we revolting against? And what do we hope to achieve?

We are often told that women are revolting against the chauvinism and
suppression of men against them. Of course there is always scope for
improvement, but surely `Margaret T' (as she was then) and `Monica L'
(as she still is) changed the complexion of the argument.

And what about men, what are they revolting against? In fact, do men
have anything to revolt against? Of course, I must declare a personal
interest here, so what follows might be biased; unintentional of
course. Personally I would revolt against the 'numbers game' not to
mention the high prices of weekend entertaining.

If by revolution we mean changing our lot or our circumstances then
maybe we might get a better perspective on things. It is very common
to equate changing our circumstances with an issue about rights.

So, if men want to have custody of their children, it is not a
question of the modern male embarking on a new revolution, but modern
men demanding what is rightfully theirs. If women want to have a
career and lead an unattached life it is not a question of modern
women embarking on a revolution, but a question of demanding what is
rightfully theirs.

It is absurd to think that we have to organise a revolution to get our
rights or to get what is a priori ours by the very nature of our
existence. What we have to get rid of is the oppressive thinking that
comes with the law of the jungle. Surely we have moved on from the top
dog or lion king mentality of the jungle.

The new revolution must be aimed at the way we think, at how we think
and the way we see the world around us. In other words, it in no one's
favour to give us our rights. My rights are no less mine than my left
hand is mine. It is absurd to talk of women having the right to reach
the top of a Fortune 500 company. Or men having the right to stay at
home looking after the family and their wives bring home the bacon.

If rights belong to no one or nothing to dispense off then why do we
feel or have the need to fight for them? Suppression or plain bullying
is responsible for the main reason. Conservative (with a small c)
thinking is an other reason and is probably the result of suppression
in the first place. There could, however, be an other reason. Lack of
knowledge and skills. It's one thing not to be allowed to advance, but
it's something really different if one does not have the skills to

Maybe the new revolutions should not focus on giving us rights or new
rights, which we already have anyway. Maybe the new revolutions ought
to focus on opportunities. It is one thing to have the right to bring
home the bacon and another to have eggs and bacon for breakfast.

This is where the problems start; the little matter of supply and
demand have to be accounted for. Not everyone can become a mover and
shaker in a Fortune 500 company. Limited resources really limit our

In a way, a revolution must not address itself at giving rights, nor
at the redistribution of existing resources, but a true revolution
must deal with the creation of opportunities.

It is only when we have access to opportunities that we can really
benefit from a revolution. But equal access to limited opportunities
implies cooperation and consensus. The path to cooperation and
consensus has so far taken from brut force, as in the hunter-gatherer
eats saber tooth tiger for lunch, to suppression, i.e. the law of the
jungle, to the empowering of the common man, through the establishment
of the House of Commons, to group assertion, as in feminism.

Without any doubt the next and final revolution must be, the
cooperation and consensus between males and females, as in respect of
people as individuals and human beings.

take care


--- End forwarded message ---

No comments: