tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7529903.post116558277423295965..comments2024-03-07T11:39:09.758+11:00Comments on Will Type For Food: A Sort of Response ...TimThttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10333303180015967125noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7529903.post-1165988132620461812006-12-13T16:35:00.000+11:002006-12-13T16:35:00.000+11:00That sounds like Lewis. I got angry at the way he ...That sounds like Lewis. <BR/><BR/>I got angry at the way he treated his main female character. Sure, she was always intended to be a satire on the 'modern' woman, but the closing pages of the book are just ridiculous. Pity, too, because many of the other passages in THS are great - a few chapters before he brings the zoo into an Oxford dining hall!<BR/><BR/>That's the thing about Lewis: you get passages of brilliant writing against what is essentially religious pulp. Why on earth he thought he could end 'Perelandara' with a verseless (and almost meaningless) THIRTY PAGE PSALM, I don't know. I lasted for the first page and gave it up.TimThttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10333303180015967125noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7529903.post-1165986216388763472006-12-13T16:03:00.000+11:002006-12-13T16:03:00.000+11:00I always remember Lewis saying (in That Hideous St...I always remember Lewis saying (in That Hideous Strength)that God is so masculine, in relation to Him everything else is feminine, which seems sort of meta-sexist and reduced my embarrassment at his normal, everyday sexism, which, of course, he had in spades.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7529903.post-1165976560057228632006-12-13T13:22:00.000+11:002006-12-13T13:22:00.000+11:00That depends, are you interested in signing up to ...That depends, are you interested in signing up to the label 'White Trash Honky Crackers' I'm thinking of putting on to the market? And leaving a name while you're at it?TimThttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10333303180015967125noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7529903.post-1165905924947367172006-12-12T17:45:00.000+11:002006-12-12T17:45:00.000+11:00I think I see what you mean. What do you think abo...I think I see what you mean. What do you think about the books mentioned? A few people seem to be put off by the implicit Christian message in C S Lewis. And you CAN make a case for Lewis being sexist, but the best examples come from his sf 'Out of the Silent Planet' trilogy, and definitely not the Narnia books. (The most important character in the series is arguably Lucy, and she's nobody's fool.)TimThttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10333303180015967125noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7529903.post-1165754398923418612006-12-10T23:39:00.000+11:002006-12-10T23:39:00.000+11:00A category is merely the mind's way of understandi...A category is merely the mind's way of understanding common things. We know the general shape of a thing called a chair, thus, when we see a piece of furniture conforming to that general design, no matter if made of wood, or square, or material with padding, or in a 70s enclosed plastic ball, we understand that this is the particular piece of furniture that we can sit on without being rude or foolish, as opposed to sitting on the kitchen bench, or the television.<BR/><BR/>We understand emotional and social content the same way: categorising and recognising common themes, features, interconnections. <BR/><BR/>This is how children learn; this is how we all navigate living. <BR/><BR/>Science would be hard pressed to exist without categories, or some similar systematic way of understanding and validating evidence. <BR/><BR/>A stereotype is not a category. It has come to be used, most often, in a pejorative manner, hence why it has lost its discursive value.<BR/><BR/>Prejudice and stereotypes are unrelated, other than to the extent that a person may be prejudiced, with the root of their prejudicial thinking being bound up in an unfounded stereotype. They’re not interchangeable concepts, especially when you consider a ‘positive’ stereotype, eg, teenage girls who think that every 17 year old boy with a tattoo is cool, intelligent and attractive – with no supporting data, other than what they’ve seen on The OC.<BR/><BR/>Bias is a different beast again, which may be based on experience, or culturally acquired, etc. Bias can simply be that you prefer girls with blue eyes, particularly for a serious relationship. You might only like the company of people your own age, for no special reason, but that’s a personal age bias on show, not necessarily because you are ageist.Cazhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17387674413840435759noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7529903.post-1165750824454704522006-12-10T22:40:00.000+11:002006-12-10T22:40:00.000+11:00I'm not clear what you're saying the difference is...I'm not clear what you're saying the difference is between stereotyping and categorising? <BR/><BR/>Some of these terms have more validity than others. I just don't see how a stereotype is necessarily 'bad'. <BR/> A 'prejudice', on the other hand, is 'pre-judging', by definition - which is self-evidently a bad thing. <BR/> No-one in their right mind would say that 'racism' is a good thing. <BR/> But what about 'bias'? That's an ambiguous term.TimThttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10333303180015967125noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7529903.post-1165748334076811492006-12-10T21:58:00.000+11:002006-12-10T21:58:00.000+11:00A resort to stereotypes is either via ignorance or...A resort to stereotypes is either via ignorance or intellectual laziness. Journalists and shock-jocks are good at helping the masses to think in nothing other than stereotypes. It's an intriguing shorthand way to interpret the world, given how bereft it is of anything useful. By that I simply mean that stereotypes are rarely, if ever, of a positive kind - can you think of one? <BR/><BR/>A person being described or commented upon without resort to stereotypes is rarely being presented in a negative light. See, "unique" is superior, therefore positive and good.<BR/><BR/>I think people now latch onto the stereotype tag as a lazy criticism, failing to appreciate that the human mind is programmed to categorize - which is NOT the same as dividing the world up into stereotypes, which are, primarily, the domain of bad fiction and sit-coms, and sometimes excellent stage shows.<BR/><BR/>If we did not categorize, we could not make sense of the world, we would repeat foolish actions over and over (well … even more so), we would be very slow to learn anything, we would fail in our dealings with people, unable to complete simple social or commercial transactions, and so on, and we would probably go a little bit insane fairly quickly.<BR/><BR/>We categorize lefties or Watermelons, or vegetarians, or the elderly, or squawking red headed politicians, but within those categories, most people are able to differentiate the individuals within the category.<BR/><BR/>Of course, there are times when a stereotype is correct and appropriate, but that's not what the Sar's people are blogging about - they're being lazy by throwing around a cliché without assessing it’s validity, or examining whether they are the people perpetuating a falsehood.Cazhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17387674413840435759noreply@blogger.com