CardboardDreams OP t1_jcmjo4k wrote on March 17, 2023 at 10:30 PM

Reply to comment by IMakeTheEggs in The Birth of Materialism: From ancient animism to substance dualism by CardboardDreams

Should I have used weasel words like "many men"? I figured that went without saying. The purpose of the example is not to belittle anyone since I myself don't sympathize with the sentiment, it's to indicate where this analogy historically came from. Ironically I was drawing attention to its sexism - that men have historically set the terms of the meanings of words.

More importantly, do you disagree with the explanation of why "Luck" has been equated with "lady"? Because clearly this is a cultural pattern, and it seems to beg for a socio-cultural explanation.

Edit: I updated the post to be clearer about the intent.

Edit2: I felt bad about being abrasive and decided to change the language of my comment.

Glittering_Present_6 t1_jcu4pc7 wrote on March 19, 2023 at 4:11 PM

Apologies for any poor formatting, I'm on my phone.

I think the problem is wider. You then write: "Luck is “like” a female, it isn’t actually one. This is because we understand more than past ages did about material causes, randomness and probability."

Your explanation of why the reader doesn't understand luck being a female but rather 'like a female' is insufficient. I get you're sticking with your argumentative line but there is another important point that, of course, anyone can be capricious. Certainly not just those who present feminine. Combine this with your quick use of 'a female' and the overall declarative tone of your piece and it comes off as if you're more sympathetic to the sexist tones of the analogy than you actually are.