Posts Tagged ‘Philosophy’

Women and brilliance

https://m.phys.org/news/2018-01-linking-success-fields-intellectual-talent.html#jCp

“Linking success in some fields to intellectual talent undermines women’s interest in them … Overall, these experiments found that women showed less interest in career areas that were linked to “brilliance” relative to other traits, such as dedication. Men, however, did not generally show differential interest in these areas. The results also pointed to the “brilliance = men” stereotype as a reason for these gender differences.”

———-

MY COMMENT:

Women are not generally brilliant so the term does not generally get applied to them. In the same way, men rarely get called winsome.

Secondly, confidence is necessary for success because a certain arrogance gives a person a reason to believe he or she will succeed. Women in science for example undermine themselves by choosing small subjects and topics. The big fields like high energy physics and cosmology attract men because we have big ambitions. Small fields like botanical taxonomy and illustration attract women. Nobody wins a Nobel Prize for botanical taxonomy.

As usual this article gets cause and effect wrong. Fields that require brilliance and daring attract men because men tend to be brilliant and daring. What really bugged feminists about the Shirtgate scientist was not his naughty t shirt (anyone could see he was just a nice, jolly kind of fellow). What really bothered them was his masculine brilliance and daring in landing a probe on a comet.

96a8c8be846b215fda171cea950cfa9a.jpg

Advertisements

sorrows forgotten

Billowing red roses like bursting
hearts on stakes, lined the garden,
as many as the sorrows forgotten 
by those walking by; for nothing 
remains that is not in cultivation.

Julian O’Dea

She sounds like the perfect wife

” … executing violent orders with the sort of calm efficiency you’d expect from a bio-engineered humanoid designed for subservience … “

This Is the Actress Behind Blade Runner’s Terrifyingly Calm Villain, Luv

luvgif.gif

I am not entirely kidding.

“Luv is loyalty personified”:

 

Blade Runner reprised

We just saw Bladerunner 2049.

It helps obviously to have seen the first one, although the sequel makes more sense than the first film.

I think it’s a good film. But a cult film, with the usual long set pieces, some of which work, and some of which don’t.

There have been complaints about the character of Joi, the hero’s holographic girlfriend, but I got the impression that he renounced such “imaginary girlfriends” in the end.

One of the most interesting characters was a replicant (robot) villainess called Luv. By comparison, the most important female character was a little bland really.

I don’t think it was as good as the original movie, but it will, as they say, keep fans happy.

The iconic “Rachael” character makes a sort-of appearance. But not a very happy one. It’s interesting that the movie obsesses over her shiny red lipstick. Ridley Scott did too when he directed the original film. One addition to the canon is that supposedly Tyrell set up the meeting in the original movie between Deckard and Rachael precisely so that they would become a couple and have a child.

This is the recreated Rachael from the new film (it is such an irony that the original actress Sean Young is too old to play Rachael but technology has recreated her nonetheless):

Rachaelin2049.jpg

I think it could have lost at least half an hour.

I would give it at least 7 out of 10. But it’s a bleak, violent movie and that would limit its appeal.

Three more points.

There is a theme of lying and deception throughout the film. The replicants may be more compliant but they are better liars.

Luv flirts with the male replicant/robot protagonist. In some ways this is the story of Deckard and Rachael again, but entirely negative.

The theory that Deckard himself is a replicant is strengthened but I am not sure it is quite conclusive.

Luv, the stylish replicant villainess:
luv1.jpg
————————————————————————
luv2.jpg
Luv, as people have noted, was the most interesting new character. It’s a shame that they killed her.

I must say I found this rather satisfying

It’s meant I suppose to show a “gender-flipped” world, but if that’s the way they think we men have it, that’s fine by me. I find it rather pleasing to be honest. (I have seen these gender-flipped skits for decades now.)

Wearing funny hats

Here is an analogy or a parable.

I sometimes think we all go about in life wearing (symbolically) a strange-looking hat on our head. We can’t see it: but other people can, clearly.

The hat looks foolish. We are oblivious to it. Everybody else has a foolish hat we can see. But we can’t see our own. As far as we are concerned, we don’t personally have one.

It is nearly impossible for a person to hide his or her hat. One person’s hat might be composed largely of anger. Another’s of lust. Or greed. It is often all too obvious. Except to the person himself.

We constantly betray our true faults. By word. By choice of phrase. By what we don’t say. By what we do. By how we spend our time.

We are all wearing an ugly or ridiculous hat. One we can’t see.

Nietzsche on tall and short women

” … small females seem to me to belong to another sex than tall women …”

This saying is quoted by Nietzsche but mocked by one of his best-known translators. But I think he might have been onto something.

Taller women do seem more like men than shorter women. More of a match for men. It is possible that they are more intelligent than shorter women since there is a positive correlation between height and intelligence. And being literally closer to men in their build presumably affects their conception of themselves.

A group of women of average height can seem like munchkins to a man. Whereas a taller woman is a different proposition. When a male writer wants the reader to take a female character seriously, he often makes her tall.