Thread:User talk:Armondikov/Re: Minorities in atheism/skepticism/reply (3)

I don't know about our level of racial minority, since color is not something one sees online, i'm skeptical that you have a good "attraction" of women, and have no idea about gay rights. When I came 2 years ago, and again when I arrived in July(?)ish, i found that while you had some articles about abortion, about women's role in politics, about the difference between "anti women & clinton" vs. "anti woman and palin", it was very much a male perspective on those issues. "these are what matter to the main stream male dominated world - even for the rational and liberal". It really kinda bit my craw that our most developed "womem's issues" were still male centric.

I have no idea if the racial or gay issues are straight or white centric in the same way. I'm white and straight -- I don't know how a mexican national would feel about our immigration articles, for example. ADk mentioned on the other thread "why can't men speak for both sides, if that is their job. The answer is actually pretty simple "pidgen english".  Those in power do not have to learn other languages, do not have to think about how other people live, and do not have to put themselves in other people's shoes.  Those who server the powered, have historically always had to know both sides.  They spoke both english AND their native languages if they wanted to be successful; they predict the needs of those they serve, so they have to be "in their shoes"; etc.

Minorities of any type have to know how to fit into both worlds, so they better understand both worlds. The powered "majority" (which are not numerically majority of course" do not.

The very picture you show of the "4 white old dudes" is sort prevalent in academics as a whole (at least in the late 80's and 90s when i was a grad student - i hear it's "changing", but not "changed"). You will succeed far more if you do not list your woman's first name on your books, or unless you write about "women's issues". The most famous historians, linguists, and other scholars of humanities are still men. Women have to fight to have a voice, and when they disagree with the dominant they are dismissed, not because, like say, Krauss - they have a novel but not fully analyzed model, but honest to god, guys, because they "don't get it", are not "well versed enough" or are "caught in women's emotional views".

Women, blacks, gays see the world differently than the White mainstream. Not because of genetics, but because of experiences we have, ways we are raised, and roles we play. So when a woman say "but the mind is not what is making decisions; in fact, the mind and logic more often than not are there to justify something you know intunitivly or from your emotional context" it is dismissed as "women's philosophy" until a MALE writes the same thing.

I don't have the cites on me, but i used to bring into class, articles from so-called "feminist Ethics" and read 10 or 20 year old articles talking about the importance of emotion and intuition - anti Kant type ethics and morality. and showed the Science Citation Index for these works. Who was citing them? But then a mainstream author, Lakoff, started writing about it, and all of a sudden, it was an acceptable (not alternative but as a supplement to Kant).

I sound ranty, but as an academic, it is very strange to me to hear people talk around this issue, trying to understand it, but still approaching it from the "If i talk about it, I get it" sense. That made no sense - sorry. I'm kinda not sure exactly how to explain this. But it feels sorta 'presumptious", is the best word i can think of.

anyhow, just my two cents, and also my motivation around so many of the abortion articles, the Eve artile, etc.

I'm not some anti male feminist, by the way. I just know that there is tons of assumptions out there in the male academic and political world, especially when dealing with "women's" (gay, black, etc?) issues.