I'm talking formal predicate logic, a branch of mathematics (or philosophy, take your pick). There is X and there is ~X. One is considered the opposite of the other.

In formal logic (mathematically), the opposite of "an apple" is "not an apple".

But then, how do we explain logically the girl telling the boy that she does not hate him, she just does not love him?

OK, I'm pretty conscious that I'm sliding on thin ice trying to apply logic to women...



Regards,

Daniel

RiotNrrd:I'm talking formal predicate logic, a branch of mathematics (or philosophy, take your pick). There is X and there is ~X. One is considered the opposite of the other.

In formal logic (mathematically), the opposite of "an apple" is "not an apple".

In logic, "opposite" is undefined. Contrary and contradictory are relations between propositions, and they are precisely defined. Opposite is not. It's more a matter of tradition and utility than logic.

Contrary propositions cannot both be true, but can both be false. Contradictory propositions are such that if one is true, the other must be false.

We teach children about opposites in such a way that some are contraries and others are contradictories. Hot and cold are contraries, since "X is hot" and "X is cold" can't both be true, but they can both be false. Dead and alive are contradictories, since if "X is dead" is true, "X is alive" is necessarily false, and vice versa. They are logically different, but we teach them to children as if there is some single relation of oppositeness.

Mal- works best for talking about opposites as we traditionally teach them to children, not for doing logic. Sometimes the difference between mal- and ne- is a matter of emphasis. For example, "hela" means "bright", in the sense of bright color, etc. So "malhela" means dark. Is there an intermediate state? Can something be neither bright nor dark? It really depends on what you're talking about. But if you really want to convey darkness, you'd use "malhela", and if you simply want to emphasize the absence of brightness, you could use "ne hela". The emphasis is different, even if the truth conditions are the same.

danielcg:
OK, I'm pretty conscious that I'm sliding on thin ice trying to apply logic to women...

As an aside from the conversation at hand, winky faces don't undo sexist statements. I realise you were simply trying to make a joke (winky told me that), but as a woman I find statements like this very offensive. 'Joke' sexism is still sexism and it still contributes to pervasive negative attitudes towards women.

End of Feminism101. Back to the logic debate.

Thanks for understanding that I was simply joking.

Besides, what I (tongue in cheek) said about women, can also be said about men, though probably in differente circumstances.

Einstein used to say: "We are all ignorant, but not all ignorant of the same things."

I would paraphrase him and say: "Both women and men are illogical, but not illogical about the same things."

Now be sincere: Have you never told a joke about men? (If you say yo haven't, I'll take your word on this and will believe you.)

Regards,

Daniel

Alciona:

danielcg:
OK, I'm pretty conscious that I'm sliding on thin ice trying to apply logic to women...

As an aside from the conversation at hand, winky faces don't undo sexist statements. I realise you were simply trying to make a joke (winky told me that), but as a woman I find statements like this very offensive. 'Joke' sexism is still sexism and it still contributes to pervasive negative attitudes towards women.

End of Feminism101. Back to the logic debate.

Alciona:

danielcg:
OK, I'm pretty conscious that I'm sliding on thin ice trying to apply logic to women...

As an aside from the conversation at hand, winky faces don't undo sexist statements. I realise you were simply trying to make a joke (winky told me that), but as a woman I find statements like this very offensive. 'Joke' sexism is still sexism and it still contributes to pervasive negative attitudes towards women.

It's not sexist (in the insulting sense)* though. Similarly, a woman could say "Ok, I'm pretty conscious that I'm sliding on thin ice trying to apply logic to men".

Neither sex can apply logic to the other.

What you've said, although I understand you wouldn't intend this, can be offensive (although probably "irritating" is a better word) to men as it's basically saying "men aren't allowed to point out the fact that men and women really can't understand each other well, but if a woman says it it's A-OK".

Either way, we should all just chill out .

*Technically I guess it could be regarded sexism as anything that points out the fact there are two sexes is in fact sexist by nature. Sexist by nature though doesn't necessarily make it bad by nature, unless humans were to become all hermaphrodites the next day.

Equality 101

In absolute honesty I don't tell jokes about men. I used to when I was younger (and I mean about twenty years ago younger) but then I learned better. And now I'm here to help you all learn better too!

If you analyse most jokes that rely on stereotypes you will see that their effect is to reinforce the status quo. The status quo is purely to keep privileged groups in power. Jokes about men being inept at housework, for instance, feed into larger paradigms in society that keep women in the home and men as breadwinners.

Your rationale that the same joke about logic could apply to men simply doesn't work. The prevailing stereotype is that women are illogical, not men. The stereotype is that women are emotional to the detriment of logic, not that men are. There is simply no way you can say that the stereotype swings both ways because it really doesn't. A sexist joke about women being illogical has more power than a sexist joke about men being illogical (if such jokes exist) because it reinforces cultural roles that keep women out of positions of power.

What's more they're the same feeble jokes women like me are surrounded by every day of their lives. It grates after thirty or so years, trust me. Especially when you are just as rational and logical as the men you are surrounded by who are making these jokes.

It IS sexist in the insulting sense to suggest that women are not logical. This notion has kept women out of positions of management in the workforce for years. It is still keeping women out of the sciences.

As to the suggestion that women and men just think differently, I strongly recommend reading the book 'Delusions of Gender' by Cordelia Fine as an intro to this subject before talking about the alleged inherent differences in thinking between men and women* (Article about Cordelia Fine and her book here: A brain strained by sexism).

By the way, I am totally chill while discussing this. I have no intention of inserting an 'angry tone' into the discussion because I really want to convey the long term damage jokes like this do to people and the damage it does to society as a whole. I think it's an important issue to point out to people who may be unaware of the impact of their language. To be honest I'm more astonished than angry that people here are defending a sexist joke. Did we travel back in time fifty years and no-one told me?

*Spoiler: There aren't any.

Alciona:In absolute honesty I don't tell jokes about men. I used to when I was younger (and I mean about twenty years ago younger) but then I learned better. And now I'm here to help you all learn better too!

If you analyse most jokes that rely on stereotypes you will see that their effect is to reinforce the status quo. The status quo is purely to keep privileged groups in power. Jokes about men being inept at housework, for instance, feed into larger paradigms in society that keep women in the home and men as breadwinners.

Your rationale that the same joke about logic could apply to men simply doesn't work. The prevailing stereotype is that women are illogical, not men. The stereotype is that women are emotional to the detriment of logic, not that men are.

1) If I said "I'm here to help you learn to not take stuff the wrong way", I'm guessing you wouldn't like that. Plus, how is it better NOT to be laid back and perceptive of peoples' intents?
2) THERE IS NO STEREOTYPE! This is a perfect example, we're having an incredibly illogical conversation here! Any super smart emotionless spock-like aliens watching this now would go "what the?"
3) I'm sure there's a much more likely reason for those paradigms still existing, given some of the horrid sexist comments I've seen on the internet. Also, part of it is reactionary behaviour, since feminists can vehemently push for their interests and some lesser minded individuals, like with Esperanto, socialist utopias, etc, will get all scared about it.
4) I do not know where you got that idea that that women are illogical is a more common stereotype than the other way around. I would have originally thought it that men copped that one more than women. The amount of times I've heard women pull that comment and honestly believing themselves above men and not equal are innumerable (much unlike Daniel's which seemed rather playful and not disregarding the possibility that men are also illogical).

It IS sexist in the insulting sense to suggest that women are not logical. This notion has kept women out of positions of management in the workforce for years. It is still keeping women out of the sciences.

I'm not sure what countries you're referring to there. For example, according to wikipedia - As of early 2007 nearly 70% of Iran's science and engineering students are women. (sorry Genjix, I sort of found that through your wikipedia links ).

Furthermore, I've heard "emotional", "stupid" (), or just incapable when compared to men. I've never heard though of logic (at least not used in place of "intelligent", normally that's done by people unintelligent themselves) being a reason for women not being given jobs. Furthermore, this is more about illogical arguments for keeping women out of the workplace, which is a different kettle of fish. Heck, anything can be used as an argument. "Women have perfume which causes allergies in the workplace" as an example (although that is problematic for various reasons, mostly asthmatic ones. We can take such complaints to the perfume manufacturers though, and likewise there's that horrid Lynx deodorant for men).

To be honest I'm more astonished than angry that people here are defending a sexist joke. Did we travel back in time fifty years and no-one told me?

I'm astonished that this conversation is heading in this direction myself, although in this case I am somewhat angry that you're treating this like a one way barrage on women. I thought every human took for granted the knowledge that both sexes are illogical. There are some men and women no bout that feel that they are more logical than the opposite sex, but they are not the majority from my experience and are more elitists.

Ho ve. Personan mesaĝon sufiĉus.

Edit: deleted on the request of the previous post.

Subsequent edit: I should have left this part,

"1) People's intents don't matter. I acknowledged that the original statement was said in jest, I responded that regardless of the intent the statement caused offense.

My statement that I'm here to help you all learn better was said flippantly in order to keep things light as a response to your wish that we all chill out. That statement has caused you offence and I apologise. In the same vein as my previous paragraph, it's not up to me to argue that since I didn't intend offence it isn't offensive. I caused offence. I own that. I am looking at it from your point of view and I see your point. I'm sorry."

The rest of my point-by-point rebuttal is available on request.