I don't think that you're being too hard on women. And I agree that there's something about the devaluation of domestic labor going on. Because it isn't "interesting," it becomes difficult to find ways to talk about it that aren't either gossip or complaint. I think that Wollstonecraft's (and Austen's and Eliot's and ...) irritation with the female type who constantly complains about servants, or who is "fretful" about the conditions of her life.
I wish I could find it, and I probably could if I looked, but there was an article (Newsweek perhaps? one of those places I frequent on the internets I'm sure) that indicated that men participate in gossip just as much as women do. It may just be that for men it revolves more around work than relationships, and so perhaps it isn't seen as being quite as "idle", but 'tis still gossip nonetheless. Just thought I would toss that out there.
Bringing in the historical, one must still remember also that women had very little socio-political, much less economic pull, and so social disapproval was just about the only way to exert influence that didn't rely on one's husband/family. It's still used as a controlling tool. Just look at girls in High School. The proper chatter can mean you're the Queen Bee one day, and fodder the next. There is a sense of empowerment that goes along with this. It's probably a negative sort of empowerment, but some still find that quite appealing.
Question: can you expound on what you mean by our mindful reflection of the world and our capabilities. and To make this thought less abstract: Heidegger is entreating us to be more thoughtful in our attitudes, projects, choices and relationships.? How do you mean "mindful" and "thoughtful", specifically? Is it a sort of moralistic conception or is it something else entirely? Is it with some sense of purpose, a concern about one being fruitful/constructive? I'm sure I can't put my finger on precisely what you're getting at there.
C. Ewing-
Bringing in the historical, one must still remember also that women had very little socio-political, much less economic pull, and so social disapproval was just about the only way to exert influence that didn't rely on one's husband/family.
Excellent point. I had this in the back of my mind, but I couldn't figure out how to say this well and you did it for me. I think you are right that gossip is the powerless way to exert power.
How do you mean "mindful" and "thoughtful", specifically? Is it a sort of moralistic conception or is it something else entirely?
I think there is something moralistic in Heidegger. Afterall, he introduces this notion of authenticity that becomes really important to Sartre. I usually try to take the more interesting stuff from Heidegger and describe what he is saying in less moralistic terms. Hence, this is why I chose the word "mindful," which evokes Buddhist thought. So, the idea is to think about what you are doing, rather than get caught up in public/popular understandings of yourself. Btw, in the costume drama last night, one character criticized the literary tastes of another by calling his taste so "popular." Hence, there is a long standing sense in intellectual thought that what is popular is thoughtless.
i wonder if this language doesn't run the risk of recreating the same kind of (moralistic) binary opposition (mindful/idle, intellectual/popular, male/female) that we try so hard to deconstruct. And does "not interesting" necessarily equal "idle"?
My guess is that we *all* do our own share of "being idle" insofar as we all indulge in petty conversations, gossip, thoughtless hobbies, bad tv... But my guess is that we also all do a fair amount of "being mindful and thoughtful" as well. To reduce one's behavior to an all or nothing risks being reductive and misrepresentative. And yes, i firmly believe that men can be just as "idle". Perhaps the question should be: why is one much less tolerant of women's inane conversations?
And don't we all - albeit to varying degrees - moralize? After all this post is moralizing against idle/inane chatter. And at what point is saying that "moralizing is bad" not simply another form of moralizing (against moralizing)?
My guess is that we *all* do our own share of "being idle" insofar as we all indulge in petty conversations, gossip, thoughtless hobbies, bad tv... But my guess is that we also all do a fair amount of "being mindful and thoughtful" as well. To reduce one's behavior to an all or nothing risks being reductive and misrepresentative. And yes, i firmly believe that men can be just as "idle". Perhaps the question should be: why is one much less tolerant of women's inane conversations?
Well, golly, if I implied that we are either one or the other, then that was bad writing. I certainly don't think it is possible to live as wholly mindless beings, nor that gossipy girls and boys are only gossipy. So, thank you for that clarification.
Your question is precisely the one dogging me. I don't know why I am more anxious about getting locked into an idle conversation with a woman.
fter all this post is moralizing against idle/inane chatter. And at what point is saying that "moralizing is bad" not simply another form of moralizing (against moralizing)?
Very interesting. If I fell into moralizing language about idle chatter, then surely there is your proof that I am no saint. I can certainly dislike moralizing even if I fall into the trap now and then.
Your last question is problematic to me, even if it is interesting. If one says that moralizing is bad--or what I would prefer "moralizing is annoying"--is one moralizing? My gut instinct is no. Others?
Spaz is back! (Love the new look.)
You gotta help me with this post, because I'm not understanding it, especially this latest comment:
"I don't know why I am more anxious about getting locked into an idle conversation with a woman."
I think I'm still not sure what "idle conversation with a woman" means. From my perspective, you and I have a lot of idle conversation, much of it gossipy, and I treasure every moment! So I'm thinking you don't mean *our* conversations (I hope). So if not, what kind of conversations do you mean? I'm just lost here.
Spaz:
I never did say welcome back. So: welcome back. 
I hope to annoy you semi-regularly from now on.
I wasn't sure if you were invoking Right Mindfulness or not. It does seem that a lack of presence in one's actions would lend itself more towards such idle chatter. But surely even less "substantial" or "meaningful" discussions could be an excellent way to connect with others, and to interact with the world that would not be demeaning, debasing nor harmful to others. Basically: is there a right way and a wrong way to have idle conversations? Surely, the moralizing might need to be jettisoned, unless it can be done in some more constructive way, but discussing relationships, clothes, pop culture, and the weather are not so harmful as all that, and might well be a way to keep one more "in the world", and not get so caught up in heady intellectual pursuits. Can't academia be as much an escapism as gossip? Maybe you need both to be more present and productive in the world.
If one says that moralizing is bad--or what I would prefer "moralizing is annoying"--is one moralizing? My gut instinct is no. Others?
It could be the case, but we would likely need more context. Moralizing as you're using it seems to carry with it an idea of a superior condemning what is deemed inferior. However, simply saying moralizing is annoying or moralizing is not constructive (however one might like to word it) seems to be more of an observation or at most a judgment call, and as such does not seem to carry with it the haughty sense of righteousness. But I could be reading too much into this.
I--
I think I'm still not sure what "idle conversation with a woman" means.
In the specific case you mention--our conversations--I don't see idle talk going on. What I am talking about is best illustrated by another specific example. A person in my neighborhood often comes over to talk to me when I am outside. Her conversation is always one way and consists of her telling me about the other neighbor who wouldn't get out of his car to get his dog or how his dog starting honking the horn because its butt was facing the wheel or how another neighbor let her son scratch her daughter. This kind of stuff. She is passing on information to me about my other neighbors, about the mundane details of their lives and more importantly there is always an implicit judgment underlying these descriptions. After all, why would she bother to pass on this information? It is intriguing to her precisely because these people are behaving in bizarre or inappropriate ways.
I do want to draw a distinction between this kind of idle talk and the long conversations that the two of us might have, wherein we are trying to make sense of someone's motivations or the origins of their neuroses. This sort of conversation fascinates me because it involves a lot of perception and analytical skills. Moreover, those conversations are about making sense of our own lives in more meaningful ways. Namely, by trying to puzzle through the actions of others, we are learning more about ourselves, ways we don't want to be, etc.
When I describe what we are doing in the abstract, it doesn't sound different from what I am concerned about in my post on "idle talk."
C. Ewing--
I am not down on discussions about fashion, music, tv shows, etc. However, I am easily bored by such conversations if they only stay at the surface, i.e. what women in Paris are wearing, what happened on CSI last night. This kind of passing along of information without some kind of stake in the content of the discussion drives me crazy.
Let me say more about moralizing. For me, there is a difference between "moralizing" and making a moral judgment. Part of what I was exploring in my post was the ways in which some forms of idle talk--specifically talk that is aimed at diminishing others--is morally bad. I didn't come out and say it. (I guess I am now). And, I think it is bad in part because of the kind of unhealthy community that it fosters. But making a moral judgment doesn't bother me, nor does it annoy me. Moralizing--which is exactly like you describe--is not only annoying, useless, but might be immoral.
Spaz--Okay, this is very helpful. As I'm thinking about this example, it seems to me that it isn't the idleness of the chatter that's so irritating, or even the moral superiority, it's the mean spiritedness. It's as though the only way this woman can connect to you is by belittling someone else. Classic mean girl behavior. Why girls (and maybe boys, too, I dunno) need to achieve intimacy with one person by sharing a cruel and belittling attitude towards another, I don't know. But I agree: yuck.
This kind of passing along of information without some kind of stake in the content of the discussion drives me crazy.
Does the lack of stake in the content make this "idle conversation" or is the moralizing required for it to be considered idle?
I think you're right to make a distinction between moralizing and making moral judgments. We need to make moral judgments, and we seem obligated to do so in order to make responsible choices. Moralizing, however, seems detrimental.
Moralizing--which is exactly like you describe--is not only annoying, useless, but might be immoral.
And seems rather anti-Millian. Isn't there an assumption of certainty lingering right behind that presumptive declaration? I'm not sure if it's outright immoral for most, but such flagrant self-assurance does seem to be the enemy of rational discourse. I don't think Kant would be happy with such shoddily craft maxims, and Aristotle would probably also shake his head. Someone obviously wasn't raised right.
I--
Classic mean girl behavior.
The thing is, she is not a mean person, nor obviously mean spirited. She is more boring than mean.
I'm sympathetic with Heidegger about the importance of projects in one's own (personal) values. I wonder, though, if that entreats us have more distinctions within the class of idle talk.
If I am spending time with friends, there are lots of different things we talk about. Sometimes it is philosophical or scientific. Sometimes it is political. Sometimes it is about sports. Sometimes it's really about nothing at all. I do agree that there is something worrying about the implicitly judgmental nature of gossip - but what about conversations which seem to be going nowhere? It is hard to see these conversations as moving forward any project which engages my analytic capacities or even really requires a modicum of thought.
But I do think they are part of projects. It is important to me to keep and maintain these close friendships. Idle chatter with them can bring you into the community, even temporarily. Is it the end-all-be-all of the community? Nope, but it does produce engagement with it. While these friendships might be "knitted together" by our better conversations, the idle ones serve a purpose - and serve a purpose related to one of these projects I value. Could one think of this as idle talk consistent with the Heideggerean view discussed in the post?
Jeff--
I think you are asking a good question and one similar to what *I* is asking.
And yet, my response is that if these so called idle conversations are related to one the projects that you value, then they are not really idle conversations.
For Heidegger, idle talk is bad because it distracts us from staking out the projects that we value and trying to realize them.
I've got to say, I see men doing the same kinds of idle gossip as women :-P
I'm not generally interested in this, though I'm not a saint, either, if I've got an axe to grind. But for the most part I deal with it by listening, then working other things into the subject.
Dunno about the mindful thinking part (I know what you're getting at there). Because in some ways, I think talking by its very nature is getting away from being mindful.
"idle talkers, who have nothing of value to say other than to diminish others?"
You just did that here and *feminists* do not behave that way toward other women, fyi.
Commenting by HaloScan
