|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On December 21 2013 14:58 sam!zdat wrote:
the original point is that you guys should stop feeling so smug in your PC belongingness because actually, it's true, 1) what most people walk around talking about as feminism is lazy, boring, stupid, and useless at best 2) many academic feminists say extreme, ridiculous stuff, because academics are paid to say extreme, ridiculous stuff, that's what we do 3) a lot of feminism is mostly about the problems of wealthy white women 4) the only time you should ever cease to take some opinion seriously is when it's yours and 5) the nervous, rabid enthusiasim with which we run around trying to prove to one another how progressive and un-prejudiced and pro-whatever we are is stifling of productive discourse and is probably the single greatest threat to intellectual culture today
1) - what is boring about half the population being treated as less
2) - as an acedemic pls
3) - the most powerful ppl have the biggest affect on a movement (surprise)
4) - i think you can critically evaluate all opinions for their credibility
5) - the single greatest threat to intellectual culture today is indisputably the hereditary prejudice we inherited from our fathers
ima be back tomorrow as a sober educated debaterist
|
1) that's a stupid, vague generalization that doesn't actually contribute to any meaningful analysis, it's just part of the "bludgeon you with statistics" discourse like liberal humanitarian philanthropy and stuff.
2) then you're in denial
3) trickle down liberation? please
4) NO. that is NOT what taking something seriously is. taking something seriously DOES NOT MEAN EVALUATING IT "FAIRLY" TO DECIDE WHETHER OR NOT YOU THINK IT IS RIGHT. taking something seriously means trying to understand why somebody thinks that and what you can learn from using an attempt to understand their beliefs in order to estrange your own. The goal is for YOU to LEARN SOMETHING USEFUL and THINK DIFFICULT QUESTIONS that you might otherwise dismiss because you are chanting slogans and not trying to challenge yourself
5) bullshit, nobody bothers to read what those motherfuckers even said. take your intellectual purification scrubdown back to the inquisition, that is NOT the goal of critical thought
this is why i hate the academy
the point is, nothing that any asshole in any university can say is going to help the "one half of mankind" that is suffering under the cruel oppression of the patriarchy. all the cheerleading in the world and jumping over one another to come up with the fanciest-sounding obscurantist screeds and declare our allegiance to the forces of Light doesn't do jack shit, you have to actually try to think about questions that you don't already know the answer to and try to solve them. a crazy idea i know
|
alright whats your answer to the question; "why are women treated as less than men?"
|
my answer is that that's a stupid, pointless question which is far too vague to be meaningful in any way
edit: i find it ironic how often men who consider themselves feminists basically frame the entire narrative to themselves in terms of "damsels in distress." quick! the women are being oppressed! let us help them!
|
whats the academy you hate? its not about the fact that damsels are in distress as much as we are the power creating the society they feel distressed in
|
|
|
yeah man, the academy is busy designing drugs to enhance our productivity at the expense of our health, blinding us with dazzling verbiage, and creating new armaments for the imperial project
|
|
|
On December 21 2013 15:50 sam!zdat wrote:
yeah man, the academy is busy designing drugs to enhance our productivity at the expense of our health, blinding us with dazzling verbiage, and creating new armaments for the imperial project
Those bastards 
|
On December 21 2013 14:58 sam!zdat wrote:
the original point is that you guys should stop feeling so smug in your PC belongingness because actually, it's true, 1) what most people walk around talking about as feminism is lazy, boring, stupid, and useless at best 2) many academic feminists say extreme, ridiculous stuff, because academics are paid to say extreme, ridiculous stuff, that's what we do 3) a lot of feminism is mostly about the problems of wealthy white women
Oh, please....
Let me have a good laugh: which academic feminist have you read, again?
|
On December 21 2013 19:19 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On December 21 2013 14:58 sam!zdat wrote:
the original point is that you guys should stop feeling so smug in your PC belongingness because actually, it's true, 1) what most people walk around talking about as feminism is lazy, boring, stupid, and useless at best 2) many academic feminists say extreme, ridiculous stuff, because academics are paid to say extreme, ridiculous stuff, that's what we do 3) a lot of feminism is mostly about the problems of wealthy white women
Oh, please.... Let me have a good laugh: which academic feminist have you read, again?
3) is spot on tho.
|
On December 21 2013 20:02 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On December 21 2013 19:19 Biff The Understudy wrote:On December 21 2013 14:58 sam!zdat wrote:
the original point is that you guys should stop feeling so smug in your PC belongingness because actually, it's true, 1) what most people walk around talking about as feminism is lazy, boring, stupid, and useless at best 2) many academic feminists say extreme, ridiculous stuff, because academics are paid to say extreme, ridiculous stuff, that's what we do 3) a lot of feminism is mostly about the problems of wealthy white women
Oh, please.... Let me have a good laugh: which academic feminist have you read, again? 3) is spot on tho.
Pussy Riot has been influenced by feminist academics for the better if you ask me. I have yet to hear anyone say anything practically useful for Kristeva though.
But as much as I hate to admit it, feminist philosophy (continental mostly) has largely died out after Simone de Beauvoir. The best feminist philosophers still alive are probably Martha Nussbaum and bell hooks.
|
On December 21 2013 20:18 Shiragaku wrote:Show nested quote +On December 21 2013 20:02 WhiteDog wrote:On December 21 2013 19:19 Biff The Understudy wrote:On December 21 2013 14:58 sam!zdat wrote:
the original point is that you guys should stop feeling so smug in your PC belongingness because actually, it's true, 1) what most people walk around talking about as feminism is lazy, boring, stupid, and useless at best 2) many academic feminists say extreme, ridiculous stuff, because academics are paid to say extreme, ridiculous stuff, that's what we do 3) a lot of feminism is mostly about the problems of wealthy white women
Oh, please.... Let me have a good laugh: which academic feminist have you read, again? 3) is spot on tho. Pussy Riot has been influenced by feminist academics for the better if you ask me. I have yet to hear anyone say anything practically useful for Kristeva though. But as much as I hate to admit it, feminist philosophy (continental mostly) has largely died out after Simone de Beauvoir. The best feminist philosophers still alive are probably Martha Nussbaum and bell hooks.
And Simone de Beauvoir was a rich girl.
|
On December 21 2013 21:00 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On December 21 2013 20:18 Shiragaku wrote:On December 21 2013 20:02 WhiteDog wrote:On December 21 2013 19:19 Biff The Understudy wrote:On December 21 2013 14:58 sam!zdat wrote:
the original point is that you guys should stop feeling so smug in your PC belongingness because actually, it's true, 1) what most people walk around talking about as feminism is lazy, boring, stupid, and useless at best 2) many academic feminists say extreme, ridiculous stuff, because academics are paid to say extreme, ridiculous stuff, that's what we do 3) a lot of feminism is mostly about the problems of wealthy white women
Oh, please.... Let me have a good laugh: which academic feminist have you read, again? 3) is spot on tho. Pussy Riot has been influenced by feminist academics for the better if you ask me. I have yet to hear anyone say anything practically useful for Kristeva though. But as much as I hate to admit it, feminist philosophy (continental mostly) has largely died out after Simone de Beauvoir. The best feminist philosophers still alive are probably Martha Nussbaum and bell hooks. And Simone de Beauvoir was a rich girl.
And so because she was a "rich girl", all her work is designed and about "rich girls" problems? What's wrong with logic in this thread?
Like, if you guys are not interested about generations of scholars who produced an incredibly rich and diverse academic production that has had a gigantic influence on our society (that is even visible on this forum) it's fine. If you could avoid coming with ridiculous generalizations and prejudices about a whole field of research, it would be even better.
I think we can do a little bit less vulgar, but I'm probably overoptimistic.
|
United States43609 Posts
On December 21 2013 14:58 sam!zdat wrote:
the original point is that you guys should stop feeling so smug in your PC belongingness because actually, it's true, 1) what most people walk around talking about as feminism is lazy, boring, stupid, and useless at best 2) many academic feminists say extreme, ridiculous stuff, because academics are paid to say extreme, ridiculous stuff, that's what we do 3) a lot of feminism is mostly about the problems of wealthy white women 4) the only time you should ever cease to take some opinion seriously is when it's yours and 5) the nervous, rabid enthusiasim with which we run around trying to prove to one another how progressive and un-prejudiced and pro-whatever we are is stifling of productive discourse and is probably the single greatest threat to intellectual culture today
when I say take something seriously, I DON'T mean you have to consider whether you might come to believe as the other person does - you can believe that something is wrong, even deeply repugnant, and still take it seriously. this is probably the most important skill anyone could ever develop in their intellectual career. and is precisely the virulence of shallow, vulgarized identity politics that encourages precisely the opposite - the chanting of slogans and waving of flags. it's disgusting
Paglia isn't a feminist, she's a moron.
1) When basic rights such as the ability to walk the streets at night without being held accountable for what someone else may choose to do to you aren't being given by society how is feminism useless?
2) Fuck them
3) Hey 1980s feminism, didn't see you there. Maybe educate yourself about what the fuck.
4) You'd appear a lot smarter if you didn't take the views you're espousing here seriously
5) You're literally attacking being supportive to people here as a threat on intellectual culture. As if bigotry is the root of all knowledge. I'd say citation needed but you probably won't be able to justify any of your statements because the Nazis lost the second world war or some shit.
You're a rich white kid who spends all his time bitching about rich white kids whining about how people being pro things is ruining the world. News flash for you here, everyone everywhere has always been pro you, you were born into that, you don't know what the alternative is like. You have literally no fucking clue about what you're talking about.
|
On December 21 2013 21:00 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On December 21 2013 20:18 Shiragaku wrote:On December 21 2013 20:02 WhiteDog wrote:On December 21 2013 19:19 Biff The Understudy wrote:On December 21 2013 14:58 sam!zdat wrote:
the original point is that you guys should stop feeling so smug in your PC belongingness because actually, it's true, 1) what most people walk around talking about as feminism is lazy, boring, stupid, and useless at best 2) many academic feminists say extreme, ridiculous stuff, because academics are paid to say extreme, ridiculous stuff, that's what we do 3) a lot of feminism is mostly about the problems of wealthy white women
Oh, please.... Let me have a good laugh: which academic feminist have you read, again? 3) is spot on tho. Pussy Riot has been influenced by feminist academics for the better if you ask me. I have yet to hear anyone say anything practically useful for Kristeva though. But as much as I hate to admit it, feminist philosophy (continental mostly) has largely died out after Simone de Beauvoir. The best feminist philosophers still alive are probably Martha Nussbaum and bell hooks. And Simone de Beauvoir was a rich girl.
Jesus Christ, that comment reminded me of the right-wing nuts who say that my cause for social justice is illegitimate because I come from a privileged background. Guilt by association bro.
|
On December 21 2013 22:50 Shiragaku wrote:Show nested quote +On December 21 2013 21:00 WhiteDog wrote:On December 21 2013 20:18 Shiragaku wrote:On December 21 2013 20:02 WhiteDog wrote:On December 21 2013 19:19 Biff The Understudy wrote:On December 21 2013 14:58 sam!zdat wrote:
the original point is that you guys should stop feeling so smug in your PC belongingness because actually, it's true, 1) what most people walk around talking about as feminism is lazy, boring, stupid, and useless at best 2) many academic feminists say extreme, ridiculous stuff, because academics are paid to say extreme, ridiculous stuff, that's what we do 3) a lot of feminism is mostly about the problems of wealthy white women
Oh, please.... Let me have a good laugh: which academic feminist have you read, again? 3) is spot on tho. Pussy Riot has been influenced by feminist academics for the better if you ask me. I have yet to hear anyone say anything practically useful for Kristeva though. But as much as I hate to admit it, feminist philosophy (continental mostly) has largely died out after Simone de Beauvoir. The best feminist philosophers still alive are probably Martha Nussbaum and bell hooks. And Simone de Beauvoir was a rich girl. Jesus Christ, that comment reminded me of the right-wing nuts who say that my cause for social justice is illegitimate because I come from a privileged background. Guilt by association bro.
Well both Sartre and Simone De Beauvoir were heavily critiqued by communists for their theories. But at the time, le deuxieme sexe made so much sense that everybody agreed on some part of it and it is still canon today (in the first years of class I push my kids into reading part of it). The point is that, as most of the history of feminism, it had a troubling relationship with class warfare, and the black feminism twenty years later, or the idea of the "intersection" today are trying to respond to that.
The main problem to me is that, for most people, being a woman, just like being black, yellow or whatever, combine itself with a socio economic background that greatly explain the situation and the domination that that person as to face. "Feminists" (I'm using this term with a relative difficulty since it doesn't mean much and a lot of "feminists" would totally agree with me, while still call themselves feminists, which sounds dumb to me) rarely ever evoque this problem and insist on inequalities between men and women, or "gender inequalities", while a logical approach would lead them to deconstruct the idea of "woman" (since there are diverse ways to be a woman) and thus instantly put an end to "feminism". Is there a global cause, situation, that all women share no matter their social background and to what extent that situation is politically relevant ?
Let me give you a more practical exemple. In France "feminists" talk a lot about inequalities in work, and I often see them explain that "women" (as a whole) are facing a higher chance of inactivity or precarious work at the age of 35. For them, this number is one of the best to show that there are indeed gender inequalities. When you do a little work and actually look at the numbers, you see something quite frightening in the fact that inactiv men at the age of 35 have an average life expectancy of 30 years (it's 10 years less than laborer and 17 less than middle management): this statistical agregate (men inactive at the age of 35) is actually quite remarquable as it gives a direct view on a social group (small one). One can think half if not more of this group live outside, rarely eat enough, drink a lot, is really sensitive to grave disease and handicaps, etc. Those are the poorest people in France.
So what about the inactive women ? First it's a way bigger group, with an average life expectancy of 47 years at 35 (1 years less than laborer and 4 years less than middle management). Everybody can actually give an analysis for that : the group "inactive women at the age of 35" is not a social group, just an agregate. Since inactivity was the social norm for long, a lot of women are inactive "by choice" (the kind of choice the society made you to make), and it end up mixing the richest women with the poorest who have basically the same (if not worse) situation as the inactive men, and most likely the same life expectancy.
To me, being a feminists, should logically lead you to show that there the situation of the poorest inactive women is closer to the situation of inactive men rather than other inactive women. Or to say it in a marxist sense, the class struggle should lead you to quit "feminism". Now feminism is more attractive than class struggle for young rich white kids who cannot accept how the world is because they can show a bright face before the inacceptable (it's a revolution against your education, your parents, a revolution in which you are the victim) while acknowledging class struggle, when you come from a favored social background, cannot come without some kind of guilt.
Of course I'm not talking the dynamics of things, just about today.
|
On December 21 2013 15:10 sam!zdat wrote:
1) that's a stupid, vague generalization that doesn't actually contribute to any meaningful analysis, it's just part of the "bludgeon you with statistics" discourse like liberal humanitarian philanthropy and stuff.
2) then you're in denial
3) trickle down liberation? please
4) NO. that is NOT what taking something seriously is. taking something seriously DOES NOT MEAN EVALUATING IT "FAIRLY" TO DECIDE WHETHER OR NOT YOU THINK IT IS RIGHT. taking something seriously means trying to understand why somebody thinks that and what you can learn from using an attempt to understand their beliefs in order to estrange your own. The goal is for YOU to LEARN SOMETHING USEFUL and THINK DIFFICULT QUESTIONS that you might otherwise dismiss because you are chanting slogans and not trying to challenge yourself
5) bullshit, nobody bothers to read what those motherfuckers even said. take your intellectual purification scrubdown back to the inquisition, that is NOT the goal of critical thought
this is why i hate the academy
the point is, nothing that any asshole in any university can say is going to help the "one half of mankind" that is suffering under the cruel oppression of the patriarchy. all the cheerleading in the world and jumping over one another to come up with the fanciest-sounding obscurantist screeds and declare our allegiance to the forces of Light doesn't do jack shit, you have to actually try to think about questions that you don't already know the answer to and try to solve them. a crazy idea i know
Nothing like a philosophy degree to embolden you to patronize people who have ideas just as valid as yours.
|
In case anyone missed it, one of the latest changes to the ACA involves a change to the individual mandate:
Feds Drop Mandate For People Whose Insurance Was Canceled
Only hours before the deadline to sign up for health insurance that will begin Jan. 1, the Obama administration has offered people whose plans have been canceled a new option. They can sign up for catastrophic coverage instead.
These little-noticed plans cover only three primary care visits, specified preventive services and medical costs that exceed a catastrophic amounts. In 2014, that's $6,300 for an individual.
Previously, the plans were available only to those under age 30 and those who could demonstrate specific financial hardships. Subsidies aren't available to help people purchase catastrophic policies. The administration says the catastrophic option is for people who consider other available coverage unaffordable.
"If you have been notified that your individual market policy will not be renewed, you will be eligible for a hardship exemption and will be able to enroll in catastrophic coverage," said a memo issued by the Department of Health and Human Services late Thursday.
Those who want to purchase that coverage will still have to apply for the exemption, making it unclear whether that can happen in time for the Dec. 23 deadline.
Giving anyone with a canceled policy a hardship exemption also legally excuses them from having to pay a penalty if they going without coverage. ... Link
|
lol I love everyone telling me I have no idea what I'm talking about and that I'm a bad person for suggesting that not all feminism is perfect. quick! sam is impure! GET HIM!
On December 21 2013 21:40 KwarK wrote:
5) You're literally attacking being supportive to people here as a threat on intellectual culture.
no i'm not idiot. i'm attacking the mindless chanting of slogans and the ingroup-outgroup waving of flags and political purity contests, which is what all of you are doing to me right now
for example, did you know that it is taboo in the humanities to talk about biology? like, if you bring up the world biology, you are automatically a fascist. that is not critical thought. there is a useless anti-essentialist dogma that everybody goes around shouting to make themselves feel like they are on the Good Guys but just prevents any actually interesting discussion. feminism in the academy today is 95 percent litmus testing, I don't mean actual feminists who are real scholars and have more nuanced views, I mean grad students and mediocre academics who make their careers off regurgitating half-digested slogans.
i'm attacking the idea, demonstrated BY ALL OF YOU HERE AND NOW, that there are two positions available in the entire discursive field 1) pro feminism! go women! we r fighting oppression! and 2) bad women! get in the kitchen! let us oppress you!. it's stupid. you are all so terrified of being the number 2 that you trip over yourselves to babble inanities about how you are number 1. it's embarrassing.
On December 21 2013 21:40 KwarK wrote:
You're a rich white kid who spends all his time bitching about rich white kids whining about how people being pro things is ruining the world. News flash for you here, everyone everywhere has always been pro you, you were born into that, you don't know what the alternative is like. You have literally no fucking clue about what you're talking about.
oh YEAH! well... you're BRITISH. and, like, british people did a lot of bad stuff and things were good for them. so you have literally no fucking clue what you're talking about. so THERE
asshole. this is what I'm TALKING ABOUT, is that identity political discourse gives assholes like kwark the idea that they are sooooo smart for attacking the impure subject positions of people who might have ideas that are not the orthodoxy. If I don't agree with you, the problem is obviously that I am a kulak straight white man and am therefore an objective enemy. what a smug prick
On December 21 2013 19:19 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On December 21 2013 14:58 sam!zdat wrote:
the original point is that you guys should stop feeling so smug in your PC belongingness because actually, it's true, 1) what most people walk around talking about as feminism is lazy, boring, stupid, and useless at best 2) many academic feminists say extreme, ridiculous stuff, because academics are paid to say extreme, ridiculous stuff, that's what we do 3) a lot of feminism is mostly about the problems of wealthy white women
Oh, please.... Let me have a good laugh: which academic feminist have you read, again?
idk man I've spent too much time listening to academic feminists to want to read more academic feminism than I've already had to. what should I read? most of them just accept deconstruction/poststructuralist theses and run with them, I think deconstruction is a bunch of crap, so it's hard for me to care very much about what feminists say if they go around grounding stuff in deconstruction. "well derrida says that these binary things are very very bad, so there's a binary, that's bad! did i do good?"
also the problem with these identity politics academic discourses is that even when there is real critical discussion going on among the highest levels, it trickles down into this bowdlerized litmus test doctrines which aren't actually what the real feminists talk about. It's the same with queer theory, my queer theory friends complain about the way that everyone misuses queer theory in order to play their PC games.
On December 22 2013 01:54 stuhowell wrote:Show nested quote +On December 21 2013 15:10 sam!zdat wrote:
1) that's a stupid, vague generalization that doesn't actually contribute to any meaningful analysis, it's just part of the "bludgeon you with statistics" discourse like liberal humanitarian philanthropy and stuff.
2) then you're in denial
3) trickle down liberation? please
4) NO. that is NOT what taking something seriously is. taking something seriously DOES NOT MEAN EVALUATING IT "FAIRLY" TO DECIDE WHETHER OR NOT YOU THINK IT IS RIGHT. taking something seriously means trying to understand why somebody thinks that and what you can learn from using an attempt to understand their beliefs in order to estrange your own. The goal is for YOU to LEARN SOMETHING USEFUL and THINK DIFFICULT QUESTIONS that you might otherwise dismiss because you are chanting slogans and not trying to challenge yourself
5) bullshit, nobody bothers to read what those motherfuckers even said. take your intellectual purification scrubdown back to the inquisition, that is NOT the goal of critical thought
this is why i hate the academy
the point is, nothing that any asshole in any university can say is going to help the "one half of mankind" that is suffering under the cruel oppression of the patriarchy. all the cheerleading in the world and jumping over one another to come up with the fanciest-sounding obscurantist screeds and declare our allegiance to the forces of Light doesn't do jack shit, you have to actually try to think about questions that you don't already know the answer to and try to solve them. a crazy idea i know Nothing like a philosophy degree to embolden you to patronize people who have ideas just as valid as yours.
you registered just for this bullshit line? go away PBU
On December 22 2013 00:22 WhiteDog wrote:
while a logical approach would lead them to deconstruct the idea of "woman" (since there are diverse ways to be a woman) and thus instantly put an end to "feminism".
this is the goal of queer theory, more or less
On December 22 2013 00:22 WhiteDog wrote:
Now feminism is more attractive than class struggle for young rich white kids who cannot accept how the world is because they can show a bright face before the inacceptable (it's a revolution against your education, your parents, a revolution in which you are the victim) while acknowledging class struggle, when you come from a favored social background, cannot come without some kind of guilt.
bingbingbingbingbingbingbingbingbing
take home message: women suck just as much as any other kind of person, and feminists suck just as much as every other kind of academic. every kind of person sucks equally, but they suck in distinctive ways. how's that for a radical egalitarianism bitchez
oh and: camille paglia has a good point in pretty much everything she says, like any provocateur, the hysterical reaction against her is proof that she is needling something crucial. also, like any provocateur, the point is not to accept what she says at face value.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
