The chimp who thought he was a boy

[FourthBase]

Well, what's the female gaze, then? Do females not also stare at certain things, longing to possess them, lusting after their surfaces, fantasizing about them in self-centered ways? I don't get what makes the male gaze so uniquely abhorrent/tasteless.

[OP ED]

:lol:

Well, what's the female gaze, then? Do females not also stare at certain things, longing to possess them, lusting after their surfaces, fantasizing about them in self-centered ways? I don't get what makes the male gaze so uniquely abhorrent/tasteless.

because it is used by "manipulative men" to snare "hapless women". [quoting the article]

the "male gaze" stuff is usually confined to a critique of the advertising industry, although sometimes this theory is expanded to explain that the universe is unfair. this was a new concept for feminists in this century, apparently.

i'm still trying to think of a polite way to address this. any critiques of this theory, in my experience, meet supreme hostility from its gatekeepers, so one must be very careful.

[FourthBase]

:lol:

Well, what's the female gaze, then? Do females not also stare at certain things, longing to possess them, lusting after their surfaces, fantasizing about them in self-centered ways? I don't get what makes the male gaze so uniquely abhorrent/tasteless.

because it is used by "manipulative men" to snare "hapless women". [quoting the article]

the "male gaze" stuff is usually confined to a critique of the advertising industry, although sometimes this theory is expanded to explain that the universe is unfair. this was a new concept for feminists in this century, apparently.

i'm still trying to think of a polite way to address this. any critiques of this theory, in my experience, meet supreme hostility from its gatekeepers, so one must be very careful.

Well, I'm all about feminism, as long as it means something, the more radical the better. This "male gaze" stuff appears to be the kind of relatively meaningless nagging that gives feminism a bad name.

[OP ED]

its an old meme. kind of outdated actually, which is how most of my issues with it are framed.

as far as feminism goes, it is the enemy of my enemy, so we're allies, for now at least, but i have personal issues with any "ism" with narrow focus. for feminism, this generally tends to depend on the researchers themselves as to how narrow it is. there is a lot of variation. which is to say that there really isn't such a thing as "feminism" in the unified sense. like most philosophical [political] movements, it seems composed of various groups with differing agendas. how seriously these should be taken is probably best left to personal judgement of individual cases.

which is a roundabout way of saying i rarely have effective disagreements with the self-identifying feminists i know. that is to say that i might think the concept of "male gaze" is overinflated/overstated but that the social cirtique it presents is more or less true. [that the ad agency lies to and manipulates people, big suprise eh?]

my main problem with it is that it is a social psychological theory and discounts the biological angles and fails to acknowledge neurolinguistic traps inherent in philosophical discussions of any topic, including this one, most surely.

it seems i've "manhandled" it.

of course most of it was predictable, in actuality. i knew it when i posted the picture, although i am still occassionally suprised by how much attention gets paid to pictures like that.

it was "sexually aggressive", which in any other context would be a compliment for me, actually. Dolphins don't seem to have the need to analyze their aggressiveness. it is taken for granted. it always amuses me that such a big deal is made of human aggressiveness, as if it somehow suprises people.

i do not apologize for my crudeness, or for my inability to reconcile my linguistic connotations with their inherent meaning. something 4B and I actually have in common (eh, motherfucker?).

[FourthBase]

Seems so! Let's start disagreeing again ASAP, it feels weird. Okay so back to chimps...What is the reason, if any, why Nim Chimpsky's life should be less precious than the average human being's?

[OP ED]

Seems so! Let's start disagreeing again ASAP, it feels weird. Okay so back to chimps...What is the reason, if any, why Nim Chimpsky's life should be less precious than the average human being's?

I agree. I mean, uh, disagree.

I'm probably not the best person to answer this, on account of my amoralism. my answer would be, because i've never met him.

i don't put values on "life" of various types, personally. i'd probably take Chimpsky over any number of other monkeys, of various sorts, y'know, politicians, priests, etc...although i wouldn't trade any of my friends/family for him.

i am not certain, i guess, that his "value" is the best way to characterize this discussion. although we could digress into moralist semantics and their basis, i'm not sure that'd help either.

the truth of it seems to me that what was already done to the monkey in question [yes, i know he's not technically a "monkey", but whatever] has been bad enough. the removal from his "natural" habitat isn't something most chimps would likely choose. what the best thing to do for him now would be? that i cannot really answer. it is complicated by the fact that things have already been done that i wouldn't advocate [raising him as a human child] that could damage his chances either in the wild or controlled captivity. basically, someone fucked up real bad, and there is no easy way to "fix" something like that. like dealing with abused/neglected humans, often there are few good answers.

and while i believe in differences, linguistic, and otherwise in the brains of different primates, that doesn't mean i think noam chompsky knows what he's talking about. just saying.

does that help at all?

[FourthBase]

It does. Thanks.

Just for clarification, I don't find anything inherently wrong with taking a wild animal out of its natural environment or exploiting it for resources or making it a pet or even just pranking it for shits and giggles, as long as it is not murdered or physically tortured, and as long as it's relatively rewarded for the trouble. It's a silly notion, that we'd have to ask an ox if it wanted to help us plow a field, because at first it wouldn't understand that we'd be paying it handsomely with a reliable bounty of delicious food and a safe place to sleep, but if it could comprehend the situation it would probably accept the bargain without hesitation -- regardless, as it grows attached to its new environment it instinctively grows to understand how good a deal it is, and effectively chooses to stay. Sure, you could say Stockholm Syndrome, I guess...we can worry about that a century from now, if we're lucky. In the meantime, what the fuck else does an ox have better to do? To be "drafted" to live amongst and work for peacefully weird humans...that's one lucky fucking ox, a once in a million opportunity.

[compared2what?]

Not so fucking fast, fellas. I was busy begging Op Ed to dance with me down in the lounge, so I need to catch up. But I'll be back. In a very femme and demure non-Terminator type of a way, of course. Just as soon as I am able to arise from the fainting couch.

And actually, I've got no Scary Lady argument with either of y'all. However, there are a few points on the girl-talk tip I'd like to clarify. Just because there are some things you can cover up with lipstick and powder, and I feel a few essentials acquired a slightly new visage while I was dancing like a monkey downstairs.

And I want to be clear in quite substantial part because I do not wish Op Ed to feel that he has been attacked or judged in a way that I don't believe was intended. Certainly not by me. So until I return, you da man, Op Ed, and in a good way, okay?

[Penguin]

My take on the value of life is..That if someone can define that value, it sure as hell aint us. We kind of have our own cow in the trench, to badly translate and old proverb. So as an ecologist, mu only way of defining value scientifically, would be look at populations of differents species, look at ecosystems, and define what species and ecosystems generate the highest amount of worth - as in air to breathe, biomass to feed beings, beings to feed other ones, soil that cleans the rainwater, trees that capture pollution and so on. When we start to analyze like this, the most worthy and valuable things are - soil bacteria and fauna, along with fungi (the mycorrhizas) that live in symbiosis with plant roots. Along with these, the trees itself create the habitat for ultimately every other living being on Earth.

According to this kind of analysis, humans are worth less than excrement presently. ("You are excrement - turn yourself into gold") And another value definition: Every being is born, lives, and dies. Theres nothing different in this relation either. Our lives are more important only to ourselves - our sense of self-importance, ego, attachment, and those around us. Thats what creates the illusion that we would be of more value. Its simply an infantile illusion, nothing more. There IS nothing to discuss really - we arent worth any more than anything else, simply because I wrote a book with poems in it. Humans might fancy that, but so do we fancy many other things.

We could discuss the efficiency of the wetware biocomputer of humans vs. apes, but thats really the only valid discussion. Ive got a faster computer, with more features, and this computer can even play games with itself!
As to soul etc., I believe animals dont have one when I see it Or when you show me your soul...So I can steal it and sell it to the highest bidder.

[compared2what?]

Hey, Op Ed and FB --

Following a careful review, I see that what we have here is failure to communicate, and in a pretty major way. (And my gosh! Who could have ever predicted such a thing might happen here?)

So listen: I know you both to be on the side of what I'm going to deem "justice." Primarily because it's a word that has a generally positive connotation that doesn't blatantly disrespect any strongly held idealogical precepts expressed by either of you. At least as I understand them. Which I want to, because you are my RI pals, and I value the hell out of you.

How-ever....I don't want to waste my time amiably seeking to shine a light into the male-gaze-related murk if it's just going to lead to the slinging of fucked-up shit on all sides owing to the moderately fucking compound and complex obstacles created by prior miscommunication.

Nothing but love, and any reply is fine, but would you prefer a post here briefly untangling some knots in the thread, or do you want me to take it elsewhere? Fond of you as I am, I have a feeling you may not exactly be sitting around happily anticipating the moment when the comments I promised in my previous post finally and at long last reveal themselves to your warm and receptive, um, gaze.

Please advise. I'm cool either way.

[OP ED]

as you will, dear.

I haven't been offended yet, not really, except at the lack of people understanding my joke. that, at least, is something i'm used to. Frankly, after half-a-dozen accusations of various things (let's see, CIA agent, zionist propogandist, holocaust denier, pedophile, "truther", gatekeeper, etc) being labelled misogynist wouldn't be the worst thing to happen to me, honestly.

i don't think its going to get any further off-topic either, so i'm personally fine with keeping it in-house, as well.

[compared2what?]

as you will, dear.

I haven't been offended yet, not really, except at the lack of people understanding my joke. that, at least, is something i'm used to. Frankly, after half-a-dozen accusations of various things (let's see, CIA agent, zionist propogandist, holocaust denier, pedophile, "truther", gatekeeper, etc) being labelled misogynist wouldn't be the worst thing to happen to me, honestly.

i don't think its going to get any further off-topic either, so i'm personally fine with keeping it in-house, as well.

Dude -- This would be a good example of that failure to communicate thing I mentioned. NO ONE has even COME CLOSE to labeling you a misogynist on this thread.

As your attorney, I strongly advise you to drop the shovel and back away from the hole you're digging until I can post a short glossary of terminology.

[OP ED]

not yet, they haven't. of course, as i mentioned to 4B above, i haven't yet decided whether or not to engage in a critique of gaze theory, at least not seriously. that is something i've never done outside of a classroom.

so, no, no one has actually called me anything here. i appreciate that, of course, but it doesn't really matter one way or the other, so far as my willingness to participate further goes.

honestly, it actually bothers me more that it is considered strange for one to not derive pleasure from dancing.

take your time with the terminologies. I have to tell someone a story about a mothman and still sleep at some point (37 hours awake and counting) before my day is finished.

LIL,
SHCR

[compared2what?]

i haven't yet decided whether or not to engage in a critique of gaze theory, at least not seriously. that is something i've never done outside of a classroom.

Now that's the Op Ed whose impeccable verbal precision wrt the deployment of invisible preemptive rhetorical technique in the face of anticipated argument we have come to know and love.

honestly, it actually bothers me more that it is considered strange for one to not derive pleasure from dancing.

Being a close reader, I didn't fail to note that there was an emoticon qualifier on the above sentence, indicating, inter alia, that it was not entirely seriously intended. That notwithstanding, I don't know who the fuck wrote that. Other than some guy who apparently comprehended your plainly stated disinclination to dance, but for some reason lost all critical faculties when reading the two posts responding to to said statement.

Whoever that guy is -- personally, I've only ever seen him before posting under your name on this thread, but for the sake of convenience, let's call him Mr. Oversensitive McSensitivity -- could you let him know that neither of those posts implicitly or explicitly suggested that your not deriving pleasure from dancing was strange?

If he is then in need of any further explanation, you might point out that both responses were from posters whose manifest enjoyment of the dance might naturally predispose them to wish that others share in the enjoyment, if not in the dance.

Taking cautious and unthreatening baby-steps, you can then add that both replies employed rhetorical techniques typical of their respective authors to provide you with an entree to the festivities fully custom-fitted to accommodate the stated tastes and inclinations of the Op Ed we know and love.

That's how I read it anyway. I do not claim to speak for Miss Aronburg, whose three-word reply served as a several-chapter dissertation on more than one subject. However, I hope to have understood what she wrote well enough not to be mistaken in thinking that functionally speaking, it did also serve as the kind of entree described above, and not just by coincidence.

Hope you're getting some rest having first disabled the keyboard so that marauding clowns can't post shit under your name while you sleep, thus baffling your friends and startling the horses. I can't afford to spend much time here today either. Though I did note and wish to pass on this headline from over at the Times online:

Opinion:

MISOGYNY VS. SEXISM

Responding to readers' criticism, Nicholas D. Kristof reflects on the difference between misogyny and sexism.

I do know who the clowns running that show are, since I was unfortunate enough once to have dwelt among them. But I have long since done my penance for that, so I am not about to volunteer for further punishment by clicking on that particular link. However, I am reasonably sure that one of the baseline theses of whatever more nuanced response I might have to the ongoing buffoonery taking place in whatever grotto to which that link leads would be something along the lines of: "Charity begins at home."

And that it would definitely include a postcript reading: "Way to write a dek, online opinion/editorial desk. Thesaurus much?"

Sweet dreams to you.

[OP ED]

i haven't yet decided whether or not to engage in a critique of gaze theory, at least not seriously. that is something i've never done outside of a classroom.

Now that's the Op Ed whose impeccable verbal precision wrt the deployment of invisible preemptive rhetorical technique in the face of anticipated argument we have come to know and love.

That is an extremely well contructed sentence. although, for the record:
a) my classroom experiences were less than rewarding, as many such experiences tend to be.
b) as far as verbal precision goes, I'm not certain I agree. As 4B would say: "I actually just talk this way." On the other hand, I was generally taught not to discourage compliments, whatever their source, as this discouragement can easily be misinterpreted as an implied insult. Therefore, I am not certain I disagree either.

honestly, it actually bothers me more that it is considered strange for one to not derive pleasure from dancing.

Being a close reader, I didn't fail to note that there was an emoticon qualifier on the above sentence, indicating, inter alia, that it was not entirely seriously intended. That notwithstanding, I don't know who the fuck wrote that. Other than some guy who apparently comprehended your plainly stated disinclination to dance, but for some reason lost all critical faculties when reading the two posts responding to to said statement.

Whoever that guy is -- personally, I've only ever seen him before posting under your name on this thread, but for the sake of convenience, let's call him Mr. Oversensitive McSensitivity -- could you let him know that neither of those posts implicitly or explicitly suggested that your not deriving pleasure from dancing was strange?

If he is then in need of any further explanation, you might point out that both responses were from posters whose manifest enjoyment of the dance might naturally predispose them to wish that others share in the enjoyment, if not in the dance.

Taking cautious and unthreatening baby-steps, you can then add that both replies employed rhetorical techniques typical of their respective authors to provide you with an entree to the festivities fully custom-fitted to accommodate the stated tastes and inclinations of the Op Ed we know and love.

That's how I read it anyway. I do not claim to speak for Miss Aronburg, whose three-word reply served as a several-chapter dissertation on more than one subject. However, I hope to have understood what she wrote well enough not to be mistaken in thinking that functionally speaking, it did also serve as the kind of entree described above, and not just by coincidence.

Hope you're getting some rest having first disabled the keyboard so that marauding clowns can't post shit under your name while you sleep, thus baffling your friends and startling the horses. I can't afford to spend much time here today either. Though I did note and wish to pass on this headline from over at the Times online:

Opinion:

MISOGYNY VS. SEXISM

Responding to readers' criticism, Nicholas D. Kristof reflects on the difference between misogyny and sexism.

I do know who the clowns running that show are, since I was unfortunate enough once to have dwelt among them. But I have long since done my penance for that, so I am not about to volunteer for further punishment by clicking on that particular link. However, I am reasonably sure that one of the baseline theses of whatever more nuanced response I might have to the ongoing buffoonery taking place in whatever grotto to which that link leads would be something along the lines of: "Charity begins at home."

And that it would definitely include a postcript reading: "Way to write a dek, online opinion/editorial desk. Thesaurus much?"

Sweet dreams to you.

Perhaps the emoticons should be more explicit. I did not intend to imply any insults from any member of this board. My reference was more to the personal content included in my own response to that thread. That is, my own past experiences with those who are not here. Even so, it was, of itself, not a serious comment, being merely the continuation of a previous joke. As Mr. Hillshoist has previously informed me, my sense of humor is sometimes difficult to quantify.

It was joking, no more. The point of it was rather those you mentioned. That is, I don't really take any of this particularly seriously. In the future, you can likely assume that if I seem offended, that I'm probably joking, and just doing a terrible job of it.

Waiting for the chance to have a real argument.

LIL,
SHCR