Unknown Speaker 00:01 But after getting the references, I just know it may be slightly uncomfortable to now I want to try to address some of the questions that came up smart. And in particular the question of the conditions under which someone who is both a philosopher and can can connect her philosophy and feminism. I'm interested especially in that question, in the inhibitions that feminists experience which arise, which are internal, and arise from the constraints of the discipline in which they've been trained, and which appeared to them as objective to us. There's price this morning here to be there. I'm not gonna I hope that this isn't quite the seminar thing I expected. But I hope that all of you will discuss that question, because I'm not going to address it as directly as I would like for reasons like the winter minute, but I am going to do is to talk a bit about one particular philosophical task, which feminists might undertake. And then hopefully in discussion, we can say under what conditions with that has to be done, and you can tell me, probably more than I can tell you. One reason for doing it this way is that my own relation to philosophy as a discipline is marginal, both professionally and emotionally. It's also quite traditional, I think these two are connected. I most enjoy teaching the great thoughts of illustrious dead male and female speakers. And I most enjoy interest introducing students to a philosophical activity, which I've been taught to conceive or was trying to conceive as classless and genderless, and which I still do spontaneously conceive of as classless agenda. In fact, my own relation to philosophy for the most part has been a spectator relation, which is quite natural, given the fact that all that one person who taught me philosophy and undergraduate or graduate school and all of the philosophers I studied with that single exception, that's all the great philosophers session, were men. Now, there is a great deal of work now being done by feminist philosophers. And I hope some of you here know about that work and can tell us more about why feminists philosophers who both consider themselves feminists and do not consider themselves marginal to the subject as I do. Obviously, I'm quite different conceptions of that work is quite considerable. In its variety. It ranges from detecting and exposing sexist biases in languages and classrooms and textbooks, includes looking at past philosophers like mill and Plato for their feminist arguments. And honestly, it includes things like looking at philosophers, whatever their sexual biases are concepts which will help women understand and change their conditioning. There's a very interesting article on Nietzsche, for example, there's no families, by Katherine pine, of course, it's for them put her up here, but it's an excellent article on moral change, in which she uses niche and concepts to help us understand that the changes we might be undergoing. There's considerable interest in feminist philosophers in developing new methods of teaching philosophy, which will be consonant with dynamism. And the work of prairie follow up NASA Well, a friend whose name I also forgot to put in, but he has been a considerable inspiration to those people. There's been some very interesting work and the northern Sierras council have been on the question whether women have essences or natures. And that, again, Unknown Speaker 04:20 I hope she will talk about or mainly right now, I hope you will contribute to this list. I just want to suggest that but there is an enormous variety now being done. And I can't particularly represent it other than to say it exists. I can tell you more if you want to know more afterwards. Now, the particular philosophical task that I'm wanting to consider is just one possible task of feminists who are philosophers and that is to articulate something one might call a woman's thought, which will express and respect even as it insists on transforming A women's culture with which it can be shown to be connected. And I'll say that again from time to time is the task is one parallel to one that is described by Judith Glasgow who have put up here. And I'll use her words to describe it for religion. She talks to depicting a type of women's consciousness, which though it can be understood in terms of negative cultural determinants can also be celebrated. That's her word, and become effective in transforming these negative determinants into an authentic alternative to western male patriarchal consciousness. Now, I'm interested in the possibility philosophers do something similar for philosophy. And there is here, the morning papers, especially Mary, grant her name, but anyway, the second paper suggested something of a general philosophical background, something that one might call a philosophic relativism, which could support indirectly women's claims to connect a woman's thought with women's practices in a women's culture, philosophical work done by a taboo I will talk about by harbored Moss, I think she was alluding to him in a book called knowledge and human interest. And by Peter winch, in several articles, when I'm quoting this title up there, both of whom consider themselves very much indebted to the consign. Now, this, I call it philosophical relativism, quite simply, the claim is that all thought is relative to the practices out of which it grows. And those practices are inseparable from a culture in which the practices have get their meaning. i It's somewhat misleading to call this relativism, because the aim of both Habermas and winch is to provide a new kind of objectivity, went for religious thought, primarily. And Habermas was for social critical theory. And one of the things that they are interested in doing is undermining the privileged claim of scientific thought to be objective. And by showing that it's relative in the way I mentioned, allowing for a new kind of objectivity, with thoughts which have been downgraded, in comparison to the scientific. Now, the central point these people make, for our purposes, anyway, is that the notion of independent reality is itself a creation of particular kinds of thought, scientific thought, magical thought, and when she's case religious thought, and that we cannot claim that there is some independent reality outside of any system of thought to which thoughts can appeal. But now this isn't to say that there's no difference between real and unreal, which makes this claim very explicitly, in every coherent discipline, we must be able to say within it, what is true and what to say. But the criteria for truth and falsehood are created by an input. An example that which gives here is, as follows. He says, We of course, reckon with an independent reality, in which mountains of a certain height exist, but that statement that I just made, mountains of a certain height exist, Unknown Speaker 08:45 is itself dependent upon practices, in which are embedded concepts of nature, concepts of measurement, and most important in which there are contexts in which those practice in which those concepts are used, in which they matter. Both Habermas says when choose a particular quote from Vidkun, Stein, which is a bit obscures, because suppose it's intended to be, but I'll mention anyway, but it is not that human agreement decides what is true and what is false. But instead the direct verb, it is what human beings say that is true and false, and they agree and the language they use, that is not agreement and in opinions, but in form of life. Now, in line with what happened this morning, scientific thought as the primary claimant to objective reality comes in for specific criticism by both these people. And let me just say briefly how, what they've said. According to Habermas, scientific theory presupposes a community of investigators who are governed by the interest in controlling nature. And that interest arises in what he calls a context of work, in which nature must be met. stirred and used. within that framework of inquiry, the community of investigators has agreed to count as what is real. What is revealed to the patient, I have the repeat of the patient, I'm watching repeated experiments. The results of repeatable experiments become the criterion of reality. This is a quote from Habermas like just this one just to give you an idea of the difficulty you may get if you actually go to read it. The transcendental conditions of possible experience identical with conditions of possible experimentations. This is for the scientists that winch argue simulate. And here's some quotes from which scientists want to say that the criteria applied in scientific experimentation constituted true link between our ideas and an independent reality. But it is evident that the expressions true life and independent reality cannot themselves be explained by reference to the scientific universe, universal disappears. What is real and what is unreal shows itself in the sense that language has both the distinction between the real and the unreal, and the conception of agreement with reality themselves belong to our language. And here he's talking about, let me read one more quote from him, he's talking about God's reality. And you can separate out here and substitute the reality of scientific entities every place he puts God's reality is point here is that as I said, Before, there must be some check some tests, which will tell us whether our religious beliefs or illusions are true. But these tests are not, are not independent of religious language, traditions and cultures. The tests are created by the language, traditions and cultures, God's reality is independent of what any man may care to think. But what that reality amounts to, can only be seen from the religious tradition in which the concept of God is used. It is within the use of religious language and the conception of God's reality has place. This does not mean that it was the mercy of what anyone cares to say, if this were so God would have no reality. Now, thanks both these people spend a lot of time on science. But their arguments are intended to be quite general and to apply to all kinds of knowledge, the interests in which they discuss and which they think are basic. Our species interest is the vehicle and for Habermas in particular, they are elaborations in a culture of the species interests and self preservation. The three particular interests he describes it's important, there are only three years is a theoretical term. It's not like there's an interest in telling the truth and an interest in something else, and so on. There are three interests, one in controlling nature, one in communication, and one in emancipation, each inform a kind of discipline, that's patient critical theory and communication, what he calls hermeneutics nowadays, and networks particularly tried to go into, but he makes the point over and over again, and Lynch makes the point to that for human beings, species interests are never merely biological, even though they have their roots in a lot and while on unlike these men do not merely live but also have a conception of a life that to which and the interest of self preservation cannot be defined independently of cultural conditions, the interests of self preservation cannot aim the reproduction of the life of the species automatically and without thought, because under the conditions of the existence of culture, the species must first determine what counts as long, that's Habermas. Unknown Speaker 13:44 Now, so this is the sort of general philosophical background, which we can discuss in more detail, if you like, which I'll just refer to as a philosophic relativism, in which the particular claim that women might wish to make that that there is a woman's thought relative to women's culture can have a kind of general philosophic, oh, we could extend winches and Habermas says point as follows. Something I'd say what has passed for human thought has been male philosophy, male science, women should turn from the dominant culture to the own, just as the religious and scientific age the social theorist, and a technocratic age may turn from the dark mustard from the dominant culture to the era we live in. So turn to their traditions and culture, a woman stopped will be both recognized and developed. Now, this is sort of a background. And now I want before I go farther to raise a couple kinds of doubts about this very enterprise which again, I hope we will discuss sleeping. Who said that brings up awesome man. No, no. That was true. Every now and then I quote myself because I want to get sorted from myself Okay, let me say, Okay, we might point out that what has passed for human thought has been male philosophy and male science, women should turn from the dominant culture to their own, just as the religious of a scientific age, the social theorist, and a technocratic gauge is turned from the dominant culture to their own, and women so turned to their traditions and culture, a woman's thought will be both recognized and developed. And that's embarrassing. Now, the two kinds of doubt here I have. One has to do with the usefulness of this enterprise and the political usefulness related consequences. And the first one has to put out take first, which is easier. It has to do with the problems of extending the thoughts developed by these philosophers. These are two I've chosen, but outside in the context, which we're particularly concerned, and extending them to our own concerns. And the main point I want to make about this first one is that the extension is not as easy as I've made it sound. These theories were developed for quite other purposes, with considerable detail. And not to the people who have particularly talking about wealth in this extension. Winch. Habermas, I think doesn't even speak at culture in the usual sense of culture. He's really talking about different kinds of disciplines within all within male Western culture, or just Western culture altogether. Neither people, which talks more about culture, his principle paper here is to justify the practice of magic, as a, as a system of thought, which can be compared to scientific thought in Western culture, he is really talking about culture. But neither of them talk about class, or it seemed even aware of class culture. And even the language, the little language I've read, I think, would show that they're blind even to the possibility of gender based culture, so that the extension will have to be made, and it won't just be made. In that sort of simple way I've done. One might say that as a scientific thought is governed by an interest in controlling nature and interest arising in the context of work. So women's thought is governed by the interest in protecting and abetting nature, especially human nature, in protecting and abetting nature, especially human nature, and arises in the context of love. Now, this is a thing that I have said, but I want to take it back right away. First of all, it's just the beginning. And secondly, it's not one I'm happy with, because it relies on a distinction between work and love, and inhibiting distinction between work and love, which I feel we've inherited, unfortunately, inherited, and which has a lot of my own problems and working so we can both write it down and take it back. Now, the second, the second kind of that I have, I think is really familiar for other writers. But I just want to say that it's made up of a whole mess of little labs about the political effect on women of trying to do anything like discover a female imagination, a feminine sensibility or a woman's thoughts. Unknown Speaker 18:36 One of the problems is stereotyping. We ourselves have been raised in a culture and we will, as we look for women's thought reinforce old stereotypes. So that women's thought will turn out to be empathic, intuitive, subjective, women will be embedded in nature and mixed with their body and so on and so forth. Just a psychological Festival. It's told us that we would, and not saying these things are wrong, but they're familiar and they are stereotypical and in many cases, we've seen other stereotypes are misleading. I'm also worried about the widespread tendency of both sexes, to denigrate the feminine. And this has been supported recent review of psychology and science, the still prevailing tendency of both sexes to denigrate the feminine and its theories, especially if stereotyping is combined with this tendency, it will be no service to the women who are now actually doing philosophy to point out the feminine traits or the possible femininity of that thought. I'm troubled by the question which your question whether a woman's culture can be described, let alone praised or justified without somehow justifying the oppression in which that culture grew. I'm worried on the other hand, if we make very clear that the sun culture grew up in conditions of oppression. And we talked about the effects of the oppression of the oppressed, that we will begin to find the oppressed, namely women, defined in terms of the crippling effects, the damaging weaknesses, the very unfortunate, lamentable, warps in their moral thinking which oppression is produced. I think this last leg, for example, the the insistence on recognizing oppression, but then seeing women in terms of damage is both an explicit view and women's estate by Juliet Mitchell and informs a despite disclaimers of her philosophy of psychoanalysis and feminism. Now, there is also just another quite simple doubt. And that is that even when I have most wanted to find some typical form, or content and women's thought, that is the thought of women who do philosophy, I have not been able to do so. And I don't want to be simple about this. Obviously, most of the women who are able to do philosophy can choose philosophy, which is, has been a male subject, it's been criminally an impersonal subject, and so on, are probably people who have been nourished by and embedded in the male culture. But at the same time, if we try to drive invidious distinction between those philosophers, those women philosophers who are really women, and really expressing feminist point of view or something like that, those who are, I think we run once more of a risk, of course of labor, labor. Now, we do a couple of things here. Judith plasto, the spray person whose article I so admire, writes the following, he disagrees of things. She says, without concern for the data of women's experience, women can simply write theology, which either will or will not be different from theology written by men. This strikes me as a dangerous approach, without the necessary vigilance to remind us that we are part of the patriarchal culture, women may never contribute to theology, what is uniquely our own. Now, this is a danger. I also recognize I'm really quite ambivalent about this morning. But I just want to point out the quite opposite danger that you did last guest talking than the ones that have Plaskett talking about. And that is the danger of denying to women, the pleasures of entering philosophy, doing philosophy unselfconsciously as seriously as they know how, and ultimately denying to us the benefit of a non sexist Academy where no subjects will be labeled as male, or female. But I want to read one other thing, this by Andrea and rich, again, against what I'm saying. Other people let other people support my ambivalences. And this is about a piece of attack, I should say of hers on a book by Hannah Arendt. And it's relevant and I certainly read it anyway, when it comes up. Unknown Speaker 23:01 reference to the top. That's the first video I gave this morning in which she quoted from men and women articles I have been very fond of called on thank you and quoted from to good effect. Now, admin Rich here is dealing with a family of a woman philosopher to be a feminist in a way which if we were to take home the address, which if you knew Hannah Arendt from her, we probably do not to reek remind me Do not treat her the Arab. But this is just this is just the problem. That's all I really want to say and I want to do, and thinking about the issues of women at work. I turned to Hannah Arendt's the human condition to see how a major political philosopher of our time, a woman greatly respected an intellectual establishment that spoke to the theme. I found her essay illuminating not so much for what it says or what it is the issue of women's the labors and reproduction of women as workers in production of the relationship of women's unpaid labor in the home. The separation between private and public spheres of the woman's body is commodity. These questions were not raised for the first time the 1960s and 1970s that already been documented in the 1950s and the human condition is being written. Aaron's barely alludes, usually in a footnote to Marx and Engels engagement with this theme, and she writes as if the work of Olive Schreiner trout Perkins Gilman, Emma Goldman, Jane Addams to name only a few writers have never existed. The withholding of women from participation in the data attribute the common world and the connection of this was recorded because we productivity production is something from which she does not so much turn her eyes, Astaire straight through unseeing. This great work is thus a kind of failure, which masculine ideology has no name precisely because in terms of that ideology, it is successful at the expense of truth the ideology considered stay relevant. To read such a book by a woman of large spirit and brave or in addition can be painful because of the bodies the tragedy of the female, mind nourished and male ideologies. In fact, the loss is ours. Because Aaron's desire to grasp deep moral issues is the kind of concern we need to build a common world which will amount to more than lifestyles, the power of male ideology to possess such a female mind, to disconnect it as a Word from the female body, which encloses it, which it encloses, is nowhere more striking than Aaron's lofty and critical book. Okay, not so much of doubts. And I'll go on with this enterprise and restate the claim in a way that avoids some of the difficulties and in particular avoids that aspect of the claim was, which would suggest that there is waiting to be discovered some form and content which will be distinctive of all proper women's thoughts. Rather than that what I have in mind is not something we might look for as existing among women, but it's something we might create. And there's only one task again, that philosophers who are feminists would undertake. Now the claim again, and I'll be stated, is to articulate that is either to construct or to recognize philosophical theories which express and respect a women's culture with which the theories can be shown to be connected. A scientific thought grows out of scientific practices governed by interest in controlling nature, as religious thought grows out of religious practices governed by the interest and recognizing the possibilities of sense of good and evil and human life. So women's thought right a women's practices governed by her gender species interests, yet to be specified in any responsible way. And the task here that I see, aside from all the other tasks, is essentially the task at the moment anyway, of justifying the whole notion of women's culture, which requires, I think, two conditions. First, the culture the practice of the culture must be named and identified in such a way that the culture incorporates, even as it transcends class differences, that it expresses and recognizes the felt allegiances of women to a culture which they do not think of, as totally or perhaps even partly other, which they do not think of simply as male culture, that it expresses the felt allegiances of women, to their particular social and ethnic religious groups, or subcultures, to which they have more loyalty than they now recognize, as having put a woman's culture. This is just a general way of saying women's experiences being dismantled. But often in the descriptions of itself, that doesn't quite happen. Unknown Speaker 28:13 And what I think we need here really is someone who will do for gender, what Marx has allegedly done for class, somebody who will connect the simple biological differences, and I don't mean that anything fancy, I mean, the biological differences we know is confusedly and anxiously and simply, as we now say our own mortality, and connect those biological differences with institutions, social institutions, but especially the institutions of parenting, and then connect again those institutions to division of power, division of work, and the division of the responsibilities of love, which have taken place in those societies in which the institution's apparently flourished. Now, fortunately, this task is task of naming, identifying women's culture and what satisfies these conditions, is now being undertaken by a number of women. I think particularly here of the work by anthropologists, especially to recent clashes by anthropologists of women of Albion Rich's book of woman born of Dorothy Dinnerstein, the moment the Minotaur it's not being undertaken, so far as I know, by women who consider themselves professionally speaking philosophers. I don't know whether that's, I don't know, it's a question of whether that's anything maybe it's just my ignorance, but it does raise this whole notion of what is interdisciplinary, sometimes sounds just like a lot of disciplines getting together in one room. I think maybe much deeper than that. And that some disciplines will fundamentally depend on other people's outside of them to do the work that's required for them. Wrong tasks. Now, that's the first sort of set of conditions that I think the second condition is that the practices of the culture have to be renamed, in such a way that the culture is celebrated, that we see those practices as sources of strength. But at the same time that we dealt, justify the oppression which those practices grew. Now, this sounds very difficult and vague, I again, I would urge you to read, do Glasgow's article here, she does. For the she sets, she sets the task, and someone even does the task. In a very professional, it's very short little thing. For one particular feature of women's experience or culture, it's often competed a woman's identification with nature, as wilderness to nature mountains to cultivate. She first draws on short notice article, which establishes the biological basis, the Social Development and the political uses of women's identification with nature. And then she critically assesses and redefines that identification, in such a way that she says these other words, its transformed into a source of transcendence and strength. So the task can be done. But and that's what I can ask is now, finally, I really want to get a chance for you to talk and I want to do just one more thing. Sunlight that not too long. And that is introduce you to three essays, written by the philosopher Iris Murdoch, published collectively under the title of the sovereign good. And I want these essays to serve as one example, in philosophy of the kind of connection that might be made between practices, already and outside of philosophy identified as part of one's culture, and the values which those practices might have. Now, let me say that these essays, but they were not written in a feminist context, neither implicit or explicit. And although Murdoch has long considered herself a feminist, it's a very, kind of put it's the, it's the liberal ideal that she has very much in mind there and nothing should be excluded women should be excluded for anything, or whatever. She has never raised the question whether there might be such a thing as minutes thought, so far as I know, and I don't think I particularly like the idea. Unknown Speaker 32:34 She is not part of any women's tradition, either, although she is deeply and pervasively indebted to one original and powerful woman, philosopher, similar vile. And in fact, it's her work I would certainly like to discuss, but there's just too much of it. It's too complicated to shift in into this. Now, at each point, I also think that the values Murdock expresses and her essence could be parallel by values for some male philosophy. What I All I'm suggesting, even this is somewhat tentative is that the constellation of values, which she expresses here, if they were given a theoretical context of a sort I'm describing could serve as a serve as an effort in areas of contribution to the effort of renaming the practices in which they speak. Now, let me just read a few passages and talk briefly about them. And then we can talk more later but I suggest you get this it's a little book rather than you know, we live when I said the three separable things but as you'll see very much connected in Iris Murdoch, two separate topics, but grammars connected where dogs come or not. So what they want to talk about is one the value of the inner life as contrast with outwardly visible actions. Secondly, the centrality of the virtue of love in moral life and thirdly, the primacy of the person over the acts of the person. Now, lumens valuing of the inner life has been undermined It's been talked about De Beauvoir, in Second Sex did it very well. Dinnerstein does it again in remain the metaphor Patricia Meyer specs as female imagination. Now, the one question to raise is what how do we look at this respect, which has been repeatedly asserted, a woman's value will be in a lifetime just simply takes. It could be seen as a consequence of a relegation in private. It could be seen as a consequence of we're getting over to the male the responsibility for the public world and doing his weeping and his reflecting for as dinner son. It could be a consequence of her desire to preserve a spurious area of freedom, when she's mostly constrained and the observable service of others That's Patricia Meier specs. Now, each of the three writers I've mentioned Beauvoir Dinnerstein spot, each underlines the fact that women have value in their life. None of them have a Dinnerstein does it most places a clear human human value on the inner life itself. That is they don't they, they don't make clear that the value that the inner life is a value you might wish to retain as our private world is D genderized. Which I think it was, and as we entered the public world, but in some way insist on transforming Patricia Meyer specs, in particular tends to see the value in analyze, like she sees, I think most traits of women's as crippling effects of the oppression that they suffer. Now, what Iris Murdoch does in this context, is to underline the fact that there is a discipline required in engaging in the inner life. She makes its cultivation seem not a refuge of the weak, but a painfully acquired strength for the morally strong. She places the capacity to engage in this discipline at the very heart of human morality. In fact, she never raised the question another minute, I should say this throughout. Unknown Speaker 36:26 And following Simone bio, she identifies the fundamental advice of moral life as fantasy in a very particular context, kind of clear. And the fundamental virtue, which leads to other virtues of moral life and of the inner life as Attention, attention, Simone Biles, one of her prime moral concepts. Now, let me read you just a few passages from Iris Murdoch, in which she says these things. First, this is a passage there are many here and since she didn't write this in order for me to read it, this thing I have been able to find as needed support so enlightenment this is just to give you an idea. This is a simple assertion of the importance of the mere existence of what goes on inside of our heads. Our states of consciousness, different quality, our fantasies and reveries, are not trivial and unimportant, they are profoundly connected with our energies and our ability to choose and act. And if quality of consciousness matters than anything which alters consciousness in the direction of unselfishness, objectivity, and realism, is to be connected with virtue. Now I'll read you a passage in which she gives that she gives repeatedly a certain she calls Freudian theory of human nature, which accounts for the importance that fantasy and the inner life have. What seems to make these purposes true and important. Deploying theory is as follows. Right takes a thoroughly pessimistic view of human nature. He sees the psyche as an egocentric system that plays on mechanical energy, largely determined by its own individual history, whose natural attachments are sectional, ambiguous and hard for the subject to understand or control. Introspection reveals only the deep tissue of ambivalent moment. And fantasy is a stronger force than reason. objectivity and unselfishness are not natural to human beings. Throughout Rubank points essay is to insist that the inner life is active, that involves a struggle that requires a discipline, and that its central purpose is to avoid the vise of this fantasy, which is self inflating, protecting cuts us off in the world, and to allow ourselves to acquire the virtue of attention, attention, which she describes as a patient loving regard directed upon a person, a thing or a situation. I'll just read now a couple more passages, I'm not going to be too much of this, after this just to give you an idea. I would suggest that at the level of serious common sense and of ordinary, non philosophic reflection about the nature of morals, it is perfectly obvious that goodness is conducted with knowledge, that was impersonal, quasi scientific knowledge of the ordinary world, whatever that like with the refined and honest perception of what is really the case, a patient and just discernment and exploration of what confronts one, which is result not simply of opening one's eyes, but a certain perfectly familiar kind of moral discipline. Again, of course, a good person might be infinitely accented, but he must know certain things about his surroundings, most obviously, the existence of other people and their claims. The cheap enemy of excellence in morality is personal fantasy, the tissue itself grant doesn't have consoling wishes and dreams, which prevents one from seeing what is there outside one. I would like them the whole to use the word attention as a good word and use some more general term like looking as the neutral word. Of course, psychic energy flows and more readily flows into building up convincingly coherent but false pictures of the world, complete with systematic vocabulary. Attention is the effort to counteract such states of illusion. Unless the task of attention goes on all the time, and apparently empty and everyday moments, we were looking, making these little pairing efforts of imagination, which has such important cumulative results. Unknown Speaker 40:45 Okay not to give you an idea of the validity of the inner life character of the work that she gets, it gets to now the centrality of the virtue of love, whose achievement, she thinks is a large measure of a function of the capacity for attention, as she is described. I think that the association of womanly virtue with love is as commonplace as it is unexamined. And I myself thought of women's interest, possibly arising in the context of love and then rejected my own definition because of separating love from work. I think that Murdoch's treatment of love goes some way towards breaking down that opposition, in that she makes of love and achievement connected with knowledge and requiring discipline. Love, she says a one year definition of love is knowledge of the individual. She also defines reality, concerns of love, reality and reality. She particularly talks about this the reality of nature and the reality of human nature. Reality is that which is reveal to the patient I have love. That you might be interested in comparing this reality which arises, we might say using carbon Marx's language, in a framework in which attention is the technique of investigation. And as revealed to the patient I have love to the scientific reality which arises in the context or experimentation in the technique of investigation and reality is revealed to the patient I expand control and diffuse adventure. Murdoch's novels which some of you may know, are, in large part devoted to the exploration of the varieties of kinds of love to what she calls degradations, to the evils of love to compulsions of love, as well as to its lessons. And as far as I know more than any philosopher, since Plato, she has taken over 12 Overwhelming desirability, and the mysterious value of sexuality series in philosophy. She never identifies love of goodness, and actually feeling denied that she would do that. But she does come close to identifying good love with virtue. Here, I'll just give you one shortcut. Of course, God is sovereign over love as a sovereign over other concepts, because love can name something bad, but is there not nevertheless the left something about the conception of refined love which is practically identical with goodness will not act lovingly, translate act perfectly, whereas act rationally will not just tempted to say sound. The third thing that Iris Murdoch does is to emphasize the primacy of a person, the state of a person's soul. To emphasize that this has determining importance over an individual's particular acts, and to direct moral attention away from particular acts and to the individual. She says at one point, the idea of objective reality undergoes important modifications, when it is to be understood not in relation to the world described by science as opponents, but in relation to progressing life of a person. And again, she says, We act widely when the time comes, not out of strength of will, but out of the quality of our usual attachments and with the kind of energy and discernment which we have available into this the whole activity of our consciousness is irrelevant. Now, in this particular case, the primacy of a person in relation to x x person in this in this particular case, I know of no work by a feminist or anyone else, which would connect this value with the practice of the women's culture. I'm relying here more on an instinctive to have the sense that in a culture in which parenting is such a dominant feature, and that women are actually a mother's, in which Susan harden puts it in an article about the place where women work is the place where it lives. That, that the attention to a person, and the appreciation acts of that person in relation to something we might call a soul would respond to the experience that those who deal with people, especially small people have. But this is very intuitive, very vague, and I mentioned it mainly to show that the kind of work that has to be done before this sort of off the bat theory can be made into something that would be Unknown Speaker 45:46 something you know, I'm really happy with. And that's all I can really say about the content of Redux is up to you back to form. And then there are other things you could talk about, like that is connected. That's the substance that's self or something one would have to talk about. Again, I take that in my reading commandment rich. But that's been very influential. Unknown Speaker 46:10 Yeah, there are many different possible ways of looking at friends and family, it can involve Unknown Speaker 46:20 thinking about everything, Unknown Speaker 46:23 at one point or another, and trying to work through it, and feeling a great deal of identification with Adrian Richards. But her concept is that women in order to learn to become feminine must transcend nature. I don't think she means we have to give up our bodies because this or or Unknown Speaker 47:02 that doesn't necessarily have Unknown Speaker 47:03 to be in conflict with the women working in being and ascending. It's just that man have appropriated all the transcendence is that we seem to think of as transcend that there was a different place. I think so a lot of the work. couple sentences very important in the whole thing anyway, maybe. Unknown Speaker 47:39 In the next question, when you say trans men seem to have appropriated all these contents of candidates that we think of as contest, post got lots of context and in terms of roles that are located in the position in the social structure that are available to us for the outcome. In that sense, they may have appropriate context. Well, I've been trying Unknown Speaker 48:09 to Unknown Speaker 48:11 think of a primitive state being employees and triggering them. And I'm very laid back today because because Unknown Speaker 48:31 women have been dependent Unknown Speaker 48:35 on rail systems. Seems to me, that until today, I saw only two things happening. And today actually a third thing happening, but actually, the third thing I see happening, the old thing has been, that was there without our being aware of it, as philosophers as women. And that is the using of male philosophical ideas for it, to plug into them and see what we can pick out and be responsible for. That, strangely enough, has been thought by women who are otherwise that you've not been serving male systems, because along with it, but it hasn't been articulated as well. I think. We've seen it anywhere. Another wave has been the way that has come out of 20th century female philosophizing, interviewing people who went into the forum. The thrust of which seems to have been the correcting of male philosophers and I found that very useful too. And seeing these two are not necessarily in conflict with each other, in juxtaposition with each other. I have been trying to work through to The ad re enrich, see understaffing. We're trying to understand a feminine tradition in terms of women and females, and occurred to me that all the traditions that women have used in the logically speaking environment, and they can be borrowed to place women, either as culturals men have been very wolves. They can borrow Anwar, in the sense to make women insensitive to men, and people, frogs, talking with someone that wants to friends and the other, and the other transcends the other, so that the transcendence level is kind of this way, and this way, and power for five years. And another possibility is that women and men cheat some kind of integrated thing. And I guess marks comes close to Malibu particularly Unknown Speaker 51:01 trailing and you bring up a third Unknown Speaker 51:04 thing which I was about to suggest that collective basis and which provides the kind of support. Trouble with different faces and prevent is, Unknown Speaker 51:22 maybe it's because I'm asked to borrow Videology Unknown Speaker 51:25 and this one that isn't borrowed. We have the one that this is the Irish. It isn't far and what is problematic, Unknown Speaker 51:34 unfortunately, Unknown Speaker 51:35 it is borrowed, Unknown Speaker 51:37 she's mentioned that it's the plaintiff encima, via those who Unknown Speaker 51:40 are in that sense, but not far away, in the sense that they're the active movements in the culture that have laid great emphasis on the other end ologies Mary Wollstonecraft, Simone de Beauvoir and the Marxist I don't see any ongoing. Okay, well, I just want to I just wanted to make a statement about it fun. Because I am Unknown Speaker 52:07 function called attention to focus attention on the state Unknown Speaker 52:13 of women acted on Unknown Speaker 52:16 women acted on that system. So I'm talking about the reduction of systems that uni ology Unknown Speaker 52:23 feminist ideologies, Unknown Speaker 52:25 which then get get the reasserted Unknown Speaker 52:30 philosophic training. But the thing about Unknown Speaker 52:33 the Irish turnout is, Unknown Speaker 52:38 unless unless women are bound up with philosophical ideas, that is to say, unless they're in the academy working through their notions, why would this be Unknown Speaker 52:51 anything more than with this reductionism, Unknown Speaker 52:53 RiverPark interest, anybody else's. Unknown Speaker 52:57 So whose reduction of Carlsberg they sort of the producers, because I think that you understand the sort of things that you mentioned Unknown Speaker 53:05 that might count in one person that Unknown Speaker 53:13 she will assume about back centuries and how, however, and this is something's an image she's exclusively non religious, and Unknown Speaker 53:25 Sullivan Horner, like, what she is doing is to try to, Unknown Speaker 53:33 to develop in a non religious context, certain of the values of champion traditional that this isn't even I myself am also non religious. And I find frequently that the philosophers who most are most helpful have been people who have been religious philosophies. And she's one of them. In fact, I first became interested in her because she's somebody who, who, for whom that is also true, but who is absolutely clearly uncompromising ly non religious. Peter winch. Also, let me just state this picture, right in his writings. He's a religious person. So, I mean, I'm not quite sure what the point is here. But that says each thing that she talked about could be matched not just a Christian philosophy, but all sorts of places. I think there's only only Sima vile that I know is talking about tension and fantasy in this particular way. It's very also you have to memorize Murdock's formulations right Freudian, which would have to make it well after the 16th century, that one of her points is that that philosophers have not been enough influence right. So another thing that was because a Unknown Speaker 54:44 lot of content over social other times and places that that might not be okay. Today The Unknown Speaker 55:02 match that we do that we do and it's important to you I made this clear that Iris Murdoch isn't doing that that is not her concern at all nor seeland bias concern neither of them seem to me either implicitly or explicitly have a feminist consciousness of the sort that we're talking about I mean aside from the clothes that I wear ready to get started this section is about techniques a nice day breaks down it's time to get to the president is it is really nice sustainable cycling might say something and I suppose in which case very much tendencies are practices such as yours point seven today thanks so much for stopping by clarify something and that is Unknown Speaker 58:58 there's just there's no what seems to be a slight equation Unknown Speaker 59:03 having crevices that are acceptable Unknown Speaker 59:06 in our ability to communicate clearly very clearly the rationale underlying our premises process is quite different and every time something new we have any assumptions on can crash So as to say someone who's a scientist, or something actually disagree. Unknown Speaker 1:00:23 But when I talked about developing a thought and expressing perspective in this culture, I didn't mean first of all that core thought couldn't be communicated. Or secondly, that we will find other cultures radically disagree in the sense that it would more be just that this would be a different. And it's like religious and I mean, somebody can partake both in the religious inquiry and inside someone can be this way distinct rather than something that we substitute? Oh, certainly not? Well, I think as I said, there's a whole host of things that feminist philosophers are doing. And most of those things are not in any way, turning their back. And it's something that's exactly substitutable. I don't know what that mean, I'm also not terribly worried about whether men has said it before in any century or wherever they're, or whatever. In fact, that seems to be not so much the issue as whether there would be to look at the relation of the thought to the culture and perhaps that there would be something like a tradition within philosophers each relying on each other. As there has been said, to be, say by Horace and others in the literary is live literature. So it's interesting to me that Iris Murdoch read Sima. There's a case of a very, among the few cases in philosophy where I do find one way to indebted to another. But I forced her to see my bio and the work of Peter winch, and Iris Murdoch also replayed it. So I think if impure is here seems to be totally out of place. And any any subconscious of that would have those thoughts, these unselfconscious. Culture Unknown Speaker 1:02:33 it seems to me that on one hand, I hear what you're saying, but what were you looking at? What do you say yes, to talk about what they think. But there are other things or understandings about what Unknown Speaker 1:02:49 women's culture is. Unknown Speaker 1:02:52 When women emerge out of that sampling, think like men say, right, Plato's philosophy. But the only reason that she has been so thoroughly socialized female perspective, she would come out looking like men for the definitionally, a woman who thinks but like men, right? Something that that men, right, cannot be the basis of our understanding what it is to be what she wants. Now she go. So that makes us any other bunch of useless women. Oh, and then what we do with those first five minutes, and they don't think anything else. So our problem is done. And particularly asked the story, which is how do we know what what is cultural? What thought really is in some kind of distinctive rather than purely descriptive way? It isn't sufficient to say, Well, okay, here you are, I was moving. And she writes a book, and she's a woman, therefore, what she has to say somehow, distinctively female. Unless that's an extended definition that is exclusive to us as well, that I find very, very interesting and whether the person's responses are, particularly because my essence into religion. And this question is the celebration of women's activities, I'm very problematic for it precisely in basements that if we sort of pick out these people whose culture, do housework, certain kinds of caring for other people and celebrate treatments, love, this is how we appreciate it. And who say I'm going to rather than have men tell me that my kids are going to learn to appreciate myself and to celebrate my femininity, and this is how I'm going to do it. But yes, of course, what is really evocative to me is again, that celebration of our passion, rather than Finding out what beauty is somehow inherently enjoy it. I find is one thing. So now Unknown Speaker 1:05:12 I just like to add to that as a matter of fact, we have had a celebration of women's existence, their acts, their nurturing their love their their housework. And that has been another side of the bed chauvinism. That has been a problem to us as part of the male culture to celebrate the activities of women and so resilient. Firstly, because what they are, and then that's been done sufficiently and that's that's the kind of thing that we'd have to Unknown Speaker 1:05:43 counteract. Unknown Speaker 1:05:44 Well, I think you're the portlet. The first thing you said I'm How do you start what you do? It seems to me, you look at the work that women are doing, we're trying to say something that we've thought of which is not just they do housework, and take care of children. And I mentioned Dinnerstein, Adrienne Rich, and anthropologist and many, many others, that had been written to me exactly relevance here. This is an extremely difficult place to be. And I said, that's why I'm why scholars now. But what she insists is that we do not devalue what we've been, we do not accept the name that others have given. The task of renaming, because it's Unknown Speaker 1:06:25 easy to do a critique of meaning of you might have a question that I have is to what extent, women in the course of our liberation, need to use. Aiming to be a patriarchal Unknown Speaker 1:06:41 Well, that's her phrase, if you want to think of something else really describing reward and giving up language altogether. But I think the main point with regard to your thing is that, you know, this is a real dilemma she mentioned, which is a no one to celebrate women, culture war, but she talks about the men, the cult of motherhood, the cult of domesticity, that, this and that. And so it's very threatening, and for that reason alone, to ever engage in this quote, celebration Plaza talks about. And I really agree entirely with what you're saying, in that sense of the threat. Now, the other thing is whether despite that threat, one goes and then tries to engage in this whatever we're going to call it, which will allow a celebration of what different turns classical herself. I mean, she says, we don't just say women are better than nature for Ray, and Greek menstrual blood, for example. And that's the more better than nature that puts on like better, she says, Look, we can't stick, we have to redefine the whole, based on some anecdotal reports, we have to re describe rename this relation of women, between women and nature in such a way that allows both for responsibilities and regard to nature to Unknown Speaker 1:07:57 me. Brilliant, important that isn't that a fundamental assumption is that both sides distinguish between nature and culture, value, nature, culture, see tradition goes on to say that they make identification to agreement and definitely be done. It has never been taught in logic of that is that we inherently did on women's enlightenment, and then we make the identification between nature and nature and culture. And then we say, therefore, nature is not as good as culture. And it seems to me that if that challenge, then the question is, do we want to accept this identification with women, as in fact, women and nature as if that is normative in some way? It's something that we want to accept? We're saying yes, in fact, it is true that women are somehow closer to age and then or to culture, but that's good. Unknown Speaker 1:09:00 That she wants Unknown Speaker 1:09:01 to work on that is plus plus a classic using Arthur she, yes, but but using Ortner she wants to say look, we can't say this good. We can't say that, you know, that stress is someone new and I think this is the Unknown Speaker 1:09:21 challenge whether or not accurate at all, yeah, it is not itself really a result of socialization except the basic lesson which is going to have children okay. They do like seems to me that that our whole way of understanding social media, you know, inherently Unknown Speaker 1:09:39 Yeah, that's a different issue. Other news article itself is is a problem. She also plays the Spanish and tries to stand that Sinem to outside the article to justify but it's an interesting thing, just Yeah. Unknown Speaker 1:09:53 Well thanks So that's really in any way at all, no matter how much you want to remain with us. Why? Unknown Speaker 1:10:16 Because I Unknown Speaker 1:10:17 want you, I found you my greatest understanding and really understand my experiences. Which is, right, it's perhaps your particular question or at least your conviction. And it seems to read that these are the sorts of conditions and that the conditions can be seen as a motivation for projects. And Humility is the ability to understand capture the object with a few exceptions, you apply it and let it come to diagnose yourself, sometimes, we owe it to you. And love is a great company for the sort of growing awareness. But I'm the sort of love that I'm pushing maybe I'm used to seeing you in the system is a different sort of love that creates purity, because of the power of the system. Just to take one example, VIP security, it is Nestle's position yourself self identification, the left object was identification snap. So the identification is supposed to come in sets for it, you know, why is it Why do you want to steal a passion project with an additional position that is somebody who just this idea of security, sort of space, and in your own personal life, and she she just made the distinction between the association and the sort of general public pressure to love, the ability to see love and that sense, the person, Unknown Speaker 1:12:15 or at least not have any Unknown Speaker 1:12:20 training machine that is the personal focus on another application, which tends to be the prominent feature. It just seems that to take the conditions and conditions which come from the most to me, it just seems that there's a great deal of luck. Basically, compatibility, there also seems to be limited. And the sort of traditional Sermon on the Mount, just a very specific set of how much they're like limiting yourself, which is a limiting beliefs so much, nothing is too late. He is focused on healing one day, if you feel the anger, strike out, look at don't procrastinate. And, you know, I hear on the idea of justice, and rights, as opposed to the idea of concern for that and the other individual. As a person who acts in certain ways, always to come to reference for us. I mean, here's this enormous second, acting on anger, we're acting on justice, as much as the law and also acting on this sort of tapas. Benevolent appreciations, check, Joy. Now, since he knows very well, Unknown Speaker 1:13:51 as far as the narrow love, and thanks to Mumbai love, I don't think I identify or something that's fun to read to differentiate the hierarchy. And the love that you that she was writing and thinking about, that she does talk about one example of virtuous people being she's like you rarely see a virtuous person, perhaps the mother sometimes. So she has a different conception of women and connects, when do you find that? Although she's perfectly able to see that all sorts of fun, especially sexual books, because that's for everyone to do. But the other month, like I don't know, the next time quite sure what the conflict is whether to express your anger Unknown Speaker 1:14:36 or even act on justice as opposed to, again, issues Unknown Speaker 1:14:41 and you think it's impossible Unknown Speaker 1:14:49 to fighting for myself, and in a sense, identifying justice Michael consider checking in pristine condition. Unknown Speaker 1:15:04 Logs are very Unknown Speaker 1:15:12 expensive these conditions this angers a lot of experts, but I understand the question condition he went into this is because the kidneys are there certainly is one thing that the figure of Jesus just personality Unknown Speaker 1:15:55 is just talk. That's the whole idea again I wasn't precisely probably going to say is I think you're probably running into Unknown Speaker 1:16:18 issues. Now here's the interesting story that you wrote that, I think is right. That's the way in which love is understood regardless of what the conditions of use of the academic facility and loved one love someone who cannot Unknown Speaker 1:16:49 do occasion responding to me to bring up something that I don't know, returns, so nice to hear you. Just because I think that it's things that troubled us very deeply. When we consider last week, there Unknown Speaker 1:17:28 was something about philosophy and what bothers me, and I imagined or thought about it. Like this art a little bit more mature about things that really are philosophical, in a deep way, in a very, maybe theological and philosophical way, like kings and queens character. And, and so many of us who are just very basic cycle, my story was that there was a lot more spiritual. And they don't, they don't appreciate some amazing spirit of mine. Well, women tend to unite the spirit mind much more readily. And then we get these horrible questions like, Unknown Speaker 1:18:36 she alluded to it. And that is, if we are showing anger. Is that very loving? Is that very mature? And I'm starting to digress, what I'm finding is that she was certain extent, women, I think instinctively react with the idea of having a totally separate feminist thought, because women have, maybe because they're more mature. They tend to watch the way they look at the world Unknown Speaker 1:19:20 in a more more caring, and loving manner, which wouldn't exclude them for anything else. But there's a solidity to the pair attractive to read and if you say something like Ben said it said, there are two types of mentalities and the way people think about them and reality, and one is that the child and the attorney who said that, but you The Eastern tradition. And that means two ways to be in the world. Two ways to look at reality that the child has not met, that you are carrying with you all know that patient loving regard. Or else you were just give me give me give me and me, Me me selfish and motherly way, of course. It certainly is a very profound way of doing things or hasn't been studied in math in itself. And so I think that's what inspires me, they can actually be philosophy that isn't there. And then there's something that was really experienced in that house, that shouldn't be revered in a culture and much more, is revered. And yet, don't want to listen to him. Because that's been our nature in the sense that many of us will come down on the separation of men in mind, because at least part of us and I will say, there's a woman. Unknown Speaker 1:21:28 And it's conditioning the way we, male or female, because I'm sure we all know, a woman or a nice man. But what about now, I think if this omission was the limitation, and lack of innovations, like to, ideally, and that, because I'm not so much in business. I'm only sold Unknown Speaker 1:22:09 on that grander, more spiritual thing of that motherly, loving and nurturing, it gets neglected for that which is childish and limited, and not non nurturing. Please, call me. Unknown Speaker 1:22:43 I'm just sharing his reflections as a person who's been cruising conferences on why feminism should be interdisciplinary. I guess my discipline alternates every couple of years in doubt, but one of the things that definitely impresses me about all of our conversations and process is that we were very, very precise. In our terminology, when we're operating in Arizona, you're hearing precise, or very precise. Refer to the mind body problem, and you know what you're talking about, okay. And later on, which is when I was trying to clarify what you meant about communication, persuasion. You alluded to the rationalist tradition. And I had a feeling that was we explain everything, I went back and read the rational No, no, no, no, but I've had to explain where you're coming from. And you use a lot of terms that we would think of as very social psychological. First of all, I think you sit in throughout women's culture, and then women on that blows a psychologist. Because culture is clearly something that is a product of experience and interaction. So it's never to be confused with a basic physiological capacity for cognition. As articulated by Piaget, I would take a hard line on that and say that we have, there's no such thing as a male and a female brain, there's a lot of that has been developed. And sometimes no one knows what they're sometimes they get out of the hole, pens, and even have these things that you're known for. That's what I'm talking about. If I have a little six point to make is that as soon as we have disagreements, we can become quite imprecise in our usage of language. And it really becomes very difficult to communicate, I lose your strength. But But what happens when you take one of my concepts? I don't know what the word is, but you transform it into your language and you lose some of my distinctions and in turn, I no longer communicate with you. I think it's it's critical. That's why this dialogue across the disciplines is absolutely critical to maintain these distinctions. As we cut across the prisons. anthropologists have got to make us really shape up our arguments, use the word culture, and never never confuse that thought. I mean, that's a different Unknown Speaker 1:24:54 person. Right? I mean, what's your advice? This is and this is Unknown Speaker 1:24:59 what you trying to do is get away from the Tower of Babel and all the I understand jargons. And Unknown Speaker 1:25:04 I understand that and I think it's critical. All I'm saying what I have perceived is that we have to police. Those of us who are coming across disciplines doing. work effectively spend a lot of time you're catching someone who may use a concept. In another social science condition, what happens is the ticker concepts transplant those variables, it's easy. Well, first medications to philosophers are different. I know. This is an Unknown Speaker 1:25:33 optical problem, but the conditions in which we work. The world that means the division of labor, it's a 20th century Unknown Speaker 1:25:40 phenomena I taught an interdisciplinary physicist and philosopher and sociologist and on the story, it took eight weeks before anyone knew. I mean, eight weeks, every few hours, tried to map out a curriculum, I don't think there's one which is what you do is you do end up with a new language eventually. Unknown Speaker 1:26:08 What do you get? This is what I'm really asking. I mean, if you end up endlessly, each person saying, Look, explain. I mean, I agree that half of what's being said. I think Unknown Speaker 1:26:21 that everyone understands that new line, which then should be advertised. Somewhere on a practical level, that's where women's Unknown Speaker 1:26:32 studies has done a real service Unknown Speaker 1:26:34 for them in creating your interdisciplinary, Unknown Speaker 1:26:37 interdisciplinary select to get everybody together in one room, nobody understanding anybody, it can be really reading site anthropologists for I mean, all of the things I say, today, that's what I would say, if I can spell that absolutely depends. It's not like they just happen to be fed with me. And that's another way. But it is very difficult. And people get together and don't quite respect with each other to say, it's like they go with Unknown Speaker 1:27:06 you want a warning, it's not just our problem with communication. The other thing I've just picked up, because I've had for conferences running on. The other critical thing is, our concepts are being appropriated back. And I've used to trigger warning signs that men are going, many traditional males are going into research theory and so on. And they're plucking off our distinctions or concepts again, trying to again become the science of behavior for whatever philosophy of large, and again, doing the same kind of injustice to our concepts of trying to expand once more and incorporate us and we have to watch that very carefully to because they keep juggling their paradigms to incorporate us and many of us are not even attending. We're so busy. I mean, just so totally busy, kind of watch the other disciplines and feminist scholarship. We're not watching what they're doing. Unknown Speaker 1:27:59 I just like confidence to be struck by your speaking number, Murdoch's constant tension. Tension, and seems to be one of the ways out of our tremendous dilemmas, whether feminist or personal computer, it's just this concept of attention as sort of predetermined, focusing on what and where it comes from and reexamine. And so I, that's where we get myself. And this connection, I was also quite interested in that some random survey that I've been doing lately, that's been on every restaurant where you very basic beginnings of attention focusing and learning processes are really working, whether intentionally or not. And it seems to me that there's there's a connection coming in here from Assad from a moral point of view or ethical point of view attention, I promise about some of the very basic research which produces success, which can help us know that I have this particular story. Unknown Speaker 1:29:15 Think that what what you said, is really important, and I think in some ways you connect, you connect to what other people are saying, imagine Unknown Speaker 1:29:29 this is human, not male, or female, it's human. Maybe that's part of the dilemma. There's the danger of becoming a female shows. Yes. As we can get this message that we're all jumping out. Excuse me, Unknown Speaker 1:29:45 I have a real problem with that. Students that there my first what you just said, we've been through. I haven't heard anybody saying anything else. And I have real problems with this. With the insistence that we've got to recruitment, and we've got to, once again, we're going to be the nurturing we're doing. Unknown Speaker 1:30:11 Okay, let me finish I'm saying, You can disagree with me. Unknown Speaker 1:30:15 I, I think that we should question everything. I think I think that the beginning of women's culture is questioning the man's culture that we live in. And, and questioning it in terms of ourselves as women. And in terms of what our experiences women, which is, is, on one hand, celebrating it, and on the other hand, don't curse it, which is what you were saying. But, but keeping our consciousness as women up front, and I am trying to work out on this. But one thing that this is a little technical thing that you might think Unknown Speaker 1:31:07 twice like your Unknown Speaker 1:31:11 two boys, you say, they were talking about women and then saying they're using the product, that pronoun version, and I was my first reaction to it, but we're women, each one of us in here is a woman. And the first way that we can, the first thing that we have to do is recognize that we are when and to recognize that for us women is what usually women is not unusual. And and maybe that's the beginning is US culture also. I Unknown Speaker 1:31:45 mean, I think that their whole way, different ways of trying to establish a women's culture and trying to establish some kind of language that we can use that other end