|
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 22 2013 04:18 sam!zdat wrote:
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.h time listening to academic feminists to want to read more academic feminism than I've already had to. what should I read?
It's not "political correctness or purity". It's just that with the continuous expansion of knowledge many people have agreed on a "baseline of reason".
Just because many people are not willing discuss every retarded thought that has ever been brought up doesn't mean they're not critical thinkers. Discussing whether homosexuals are evil and should go to hell or that intelligence design should be taught in school would have been an interesting debate in the 16th century, but not in the 21st. If someone doesn't want to discuss these things today it's because they don't want to end the day with either punching someone in the face or getting a heart attack. There's nothing to get from these discussions, besides the fact that one person is actually a moron while the other person has successfully completed elementary school.
And the reason why biology has this weird undertone is 1. because it's pretty irrelevant in most discussions people are bringing it up. 2. In 90% of those discussions people referring to biologiy centered arguments are right-wing weirdos who just want to spread their pseudo-racist theories
And sorry but Paglia is not a feminist, she's just a giant troll. She's basically saying women have to accept their place in society because of their genitals which is the exact opposite of what 99% of people who would consider themselves feminists today think is true.
"Yeah, when we where young, that was the real stuff, but these new age kids are just being ridiculous."-Literally every conservative adult who doesn't get he's just become as intolerant as the people they despised when they were young.
Every feminist goal Paglia thinks is good and reasonable has already been reached, but guess what, today's women actually want to raise the bar a bit. They not only want to be respected as women, they also want to not have determined their role in society by what kind of genitals they have between their legs. Feminism has radically shifted from a difference standpoint towards an equality standpoint. If Paglia doesn't agree with that she can join a conservative think-tank, but it's useless to still claim that she's a feminist when she is permanently fighting feminists.
|
On December 22 2013 04:57 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On December 22 2013 04:18 sam!zdat wrote:
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.h time listening to academic feminists to want to read more academic feminism than I've already had to. what should I read? It's not "political correctness or purity". It's just that with the continuous expansion of knowledge many people have agreed on a "baseline of reason".
oh no let me not challenge any "baselines of reason" that sounds suspiciously like heresy
Just because many people are not willing discuss every retarded thought that has ever been brought up doesn't mean they're not critical thinkers. Discussing whether homosexuals are evil and should go to hell or that intelligence design should be taught in school would have been an interesting debate in the 16th century, but not in the 21st. If someone doesn't want to discuss these things today it's because they don't want to end the day with either punching someone in the face or getting a heart attack.
why would I want to waste time arguing about THAT stupid shit? do you really think that's what I have in mind. please.
And the reason why biology has this weird undertone is 1. because it's pretty irrelevant in most discussions people are bringing it up. 2. In 90% of those discussions people referring to biologiy centered arguments are right-wing weirdos who just want to spread their pseudo-racist theories
it's not irrelevant, it's the repressed traumatic core. people try very hard to never, ever think about biology, because they are terrified of what the implications might be.
And sorry but Paglia is not a feminist, she's just a giant troll. She's basically saying women have to accept their place in society because of their genitals which is the exact opposite of what 99% of people who would consider themselves feminists today think is true.
can you find a quote of her saying this?
"Yeah, when we where young, that was the real stuff, but these new age kids are just being ridiculous."-Literally every conservative adult who doesn't get he's just become as intolerant as the people they despised when they were young.
is this supposed to be me? i don't get it
Everything feminist goal Paglia thinks is good and reasonable has already been reached, but guess what, today's women actually want to raise the bar a bit. They not only want to be respected as women, they also want to not have determined their role in society by what kind of genitals they have between their legs.
pretty sure paglia doesn't think that. she is a professor.
If we want to return this conversation to a discussion of paglia, can we have some quotations that people specifically object to? I'm pretty sure I can show that she is not saying what you think she is saying. only because you think that anyone who opposes "feminism" in any way must therefore be a servant of the patriarchy. i think she said that women "prefer a quiet and clean workplace" and that therefore are benefitting from a shift from blue to white collar labor, from an environment in which it is hard for them to excel to one in which it is not. sounds pretty reasonable and plausible to me, and not exactly "social role should be determined by genitalia." it's only because you have an anti-essentialist orthodoxy and you feel a need to display your progressiveness by recoiling from any suggestion that men and women might be different, have different preferences, or have different abilities and aptitudes, which is just an uncritical orthodoxy and, let's face it, a staggeringly unlikely hypothesis.
edit: I just love it how camille paglia is comforming to traditional gender roles by sitting quietly in the corner and not causing any trouble. there's a woman who knows her place!
edit: oh! I have an idea! let's see if we can play out the rest of this discussion without anyone telling sam that he can't talk because he's a man, and therefore his opinion doesn't matter, because only the man who is telling sam this has an opinion that matters, because that is the correct feminist man opinion. looking at you, kwarky boy
|
On December 22 2013 05:03 sam!zdat wrote:
i think she said that women "prefer a quiet and clean workplace" and that therefore are benefitting from a shift from blue to white collar labor, from an environment in which it is hard for them to excel to one in which it is not. sounds pretty reasonable and plausible to me, and not exactly "social role should be determined by genitalia." it's only because you have an anti-essentialist orthodoxy and you feel a need to display your progressiveness by recoiling from any suggestion that men and women might be different, have different preferences, or have different abilities and aptitudes, which is just an uncritical orthodoxy and, let's face it, a staggeringly unlikely hypothesis.
That's exactly what i was talking about. The "women need to work white collar jobs" stuff (among other statements of a similar fashion by her) is just what makes her look so ridiculous.
That's exactly the kind of reasoning that has always been used and was always wrong. "Hey the role of women really has changed in the last two decades, but now they finally reached their biological barrier!". History has proven this wrong dozens of times, and who says that it's true know? I wouldn't be surprised if we see equal amounts of female and male engineers in fifty years, and women will be represented equally in nearly every field of work.
Taking the status quo as unchangeable and given by nature is a common reflex because our tiny perspective makes us think it is and we tend to favor final conclusions instead of accepting the fact that everything is changing all the time, but evidence seems to suggest that basically every inequality was rather of social nature than caused by any kind of biological difference.
|
THAT'S NOT WHAT SHE SAID
On December 22 2013 05:26 Nyxisto wrote:
evidence seems to suggest that basically every inequality was rather of social nature than caused by any kind of biological difference.
this is the uncritical, vague, anti-essentialist orthodoxy. it's pretty obviously not true. what is this "social" vs "nature" binary we've constructed, anyway. what does THAT mean in the first place?? when does animal behavior suddenly stop being nature and start being social? do we have any idea what we are talking about when we even ASK THE QUESTION IN THE FIRST PLACE??
anyway, you're chasing a straw man. a favorite activity of soi-disant feminists
|
On December 22 2013 05:31 sam!zdat wrote:THAT'S NOT WHAT SHE SAID Show nested quote +On December 22 2013 05:26 Nyxisto wrote:
evidence seems to suggest that basically every inequality was rather of social nature than caused by any kind of biological difference.
this is the uncritical, vague, anti-essentialist orthodoxy. it's pretty obviously not true. what is this "social" vs "nature" binary we've constructed, anyway. what does THAT mean in the first place?? when does animal behavior suddenly stop being nature and start being social? do we have any idea what we are talking about when we even ASK THE QUESTION IN THE FIRST PLACE??
It s a problem of language ad it is also in part due to academic distinction between disciplins (all discipline want to build theor own empire by nature). There is actually a lot of discussion on the interaction between biology and social. I was interested in this lind of stuff some years ago. The problem that you seems to refuse to see is that biologists and cognitivists most of the time enter sociological debate by denying entirely the impact of the society. In this regard biological determinism is used to undermine and even refute social inequalities - it s effectively refutation of class warfate.
But it s true that we need a pluridisciplinar approach on all that.
|
no no i don't refuse to see it, the sociobiologists are as much reductionist idiots as the gender studies people. i'm sure i've railed against this elsewhere
|
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.
We have had black feminism since 1970s and 1980s. Our problem with intersectionality is not that bad. Also concerning class warfare, most people these days are sadly are not anarchists or communists and that includes most feminists. Feminism has been adopted by individuals from almost every single ideology that is not obsessed with traditionalism.
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. Is there a global cause, situation, that all women share no matter their social background and to what extent that situation is politically relevant ?
Trying to relate socio-economics with racial, gender, and gay liberation is not always going to work. There are some things that cannot be fixed through economic egalitarianism, hence why we let the voices of anti-racism and anti-homophobia rather than saying that once we are equal, homophobia and racism will disappear. And anti-racism and anti-homophbia does apply to the rich and middle class.
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.
There is also the issues of sexual harassment, violence, and objectification as well that are very big issues as well.
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.
Talking from personal experience, almost every single male feminist I know is a revolutionary or other fringed political views according to the general public in the US such as social democracy. And yes, lots of issues can indeed be summed up as both genders sharing the same exact goals, but there are issues that affect women disproportionately that do not affect men, but be careful when saying to certain groups that they have the same struggle as a certain group (often dominant) because I know I would be really pissed if a revolutionary came up to me and told me that we do not need LGBT rights since the class struggle will lead more or less take care of it.
And if being a feminist makes you feel guilty, then you are pretty damn insecure and have some self-examination to do.
|
On December 22 2013 05:26 Nyxisto wrote:
That's exactly the kind of reasoning that has always been used and was always wrong. "Hey the role of women really has changed in the last two decades, but now they finally reached their biological barrier!". History has proven this wrong dozens of times, and who says that it's true know? I wouldn't be surprised if we see equal amounts of female and male engineers in fifty years, and women will be represented equally in nearly every field of work.
Ridiculous. If "equal representation in nearly every field" was the goal, then we must model our ideas of women rights after the vanguard of equality that is the Islamic world - given that evidence clearly shows that the percentile of women in science per country (worldwide) is by far the highest in Turkey (~865 or 39% of BAs in physics are female in Turkey, compared to e.g. ~792 or 21% in the USA).
|
On December 22 2013 05:52 Shiragaku wrote:
because I know I would be really pissed if a revolutionary came up to me and told me that we do not need LGBT rights since the class struggle will lead more or less take care of it.
no, no, the problem is the opposite, it is kids who think they are radicals who ignore class struggle because they think LGBT rights will take care of it
|
On December 22 2013 05:58 sam!zdat wrote:Show nested quote +On December 22 2013 05:52 Shiragaku wrote:
because I know I would be really pissed if a revolutionary came up to me and told me that we do not need LGBT rights since the class struggle will lead more or less take care of it. no, no, the problem is the opposite, it is kids who think they are radicals who ignore class struggle because they think LGBT rights will take care of it
What? I hope you are not being serious.
|
On December 22 2013 06:06 Shiragaku wrote:Show nested quote +On December 22 2013 05:58 sam!zdat wrote:On December 22 2013 05:52 Shiragaku wrote:
because I know I would be really pissed if a revolutionary came up to me and told me that we do not need LGBT rights since the class struggle will lead more or less take care of it. no, no, the problem is the opposite, it is kids who think they are radicals who ignore class struggle because they think LGBT rights will take care of it What? I hope you are not being serious.
i'm being completely serious. campus identity politics is a way for kids to play at being radical in a way that doesn't seriously challenge anything or require them to examine their own complicity in economic oppression or ecological devastation, e.g.
most campus "radicals" think that all the evil in the world is caused by people belonging to some oppressed identity category, and that what you do to solve this evil is loudly shouting about how people should all be treated the same and that all differences between anybody is a nominalist construct, and if you shout loud enough, it will magically happen. and then you crusade against other people on your privilege bubble campus who say something unkosher, because those people are definitely the main reason that X category of people is being oppressed in the world
once you have scrubbed all vestiges of Western Enlightenment phallogocentrism from your privilege bubble minds, then things will be set to rights. but it's hard, because there is Western Enlightenment phallogocentrism LURKING EVERYWHERE and you have to DIG IT OUT AND DESTROY IT with your THEORY JARGON
|
I m sorry for my poor wording I ll respond to Shiragaku when I m back at my place (I m posting all that in my phone), but I think your point of view denies the complexity of social interaction and all that is coming from a small knowledge of sociology : for exemple, do you really think violence and secual harassment have nothing to do with class warfare ?
|
On December 22 2013 06:10 sam!zdat wrote:Show nested quote +On December 22 2013 06:06 Shiragaku wrote:On December 22 2013 05:58 sam!zdat wrote:On December 22 2013 05:52 Shiragaku wrote:
because I know I would be really pissed if a revolutionary came up to me and told me that we do not need LGBT rights since the class struggle will lead more or less take care of it. no, no, the problem is the opposite, it is kids who think they are radicals who ignore class struggle because they think LGBT rights will take care of it What? I hope you are not being serious. i'm being completely serious. campus identity politics is a way for kids to play at being radical in a way that doesn't seriously challenge anything or require them to examine their own complicity in economic oppression or ecological devastation, e.g. most campus "radicals" think that all the evil in the world is caused by people belonging to some oppressed identity category, and that what you do to solve this evil is loudly shouting about how people should all be treated the same and that all differences between anybody is a nominalist construct, and if you shout loud enough, it will magically happen
Yeah, I will agree with you on the first part, but most likely for a different reason than yours.
But as for the second part, this is basically a critique of the futility of American protest in general. Whenever I work with my feminist group, I am always frustrated with the apathy of environmental and global politics of many of the people and was originally bitter about it, but I learned to accept it because many of them have suffered abuse and want to work for a future where such horrors will not happen. But other than that, we are talking about a problem with American politics where people only get involved in social issues when it directly affects them on a immediate level, such as LGBT rights since the person may have a gay or lesbian friend or relative, or feminism since the person has seen or experience horrible sexism firsthand.
|
On December 22 2013 06:10 sam!zdat wrote:Show nested quote +On December 22 2013 06:06 Shiragaku wrote:On December 22 2013 05:58 sam!zdat wrote:On December 22 2013 05:52 Shiragaku wrote:
because I know I would be really pissed if a revolutionary came up to me and told me that we do not need LGBT rights since the class struggle will lead more or less take care of it. no, no, the problem is the opposite, it is kids who think they are radicals who ignore class struggle because they think LGBT rights will take care of it What? I hope you are not being serious. i'm being completely serious. campus identity politics is a way for kids to play at being radical in a way that doesn't seriously challenge anything or require them to examine their own complicity in economic oppression or ecological devastation, e.g. most campus "radicals" think that all the evil in the world is caused by people belonging to some oppressed identity category, and that what you do to solve this evil is loudly shouting about how people should all be treated the same and that all differences between anybody is a nominalist construct, and if you shout loud enough, it will magically happen. and then you crusade against other people on your privilege bubble campus who say something unkosher, because those people are definitely the main reason that X category of people is being oppressed in the world once you have scrubbed all vestiges of Western Enlightenment phallogocentrism from your privilege bubble minds, then things will be set to rights. but it's hard, because there is Western Enlightenment phallogocentrism LURKING EVERYWHERE and you have to DIG IT OUT AND DESTROY IT with your THEORY JARGON
But Sam, phallic appropriation theory (patent pending) clearly shows that the transnominalist reproduction of gender capital in post-ideological markets is a simultaneously structuring and structured semiotic - or, rather, semiologic - process of geo-memetic virtuality. So, as you see, what you're saying makes no sense.
|
The mayor of Fort Lee, N.J. is disputing New Jersey Governor Chris Christie's claim that top transportation officials were unaware of gridlock caused by lane closures in September on the George Washington Bridge, the Bergen Record reported Friday.
Christie suggested at a press conference Thursday that local authorities never notified the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey's executive director, Patrick Foye, of the supposed traffic study that closed down lanes on the bridge and paralyzed traffic in Fort Lee.
“Did the Fort Lee officials — law enforcement, political — lose his number? Could they not get it and find him somehow? How did this happen exactly?” Christie asked, as quoted by the Bergen Record.
But Fort Lee Mayor Mark Sokolich challenged that claim Friday and said borough officials called "at least five or six" people at the Port Authority.
“Fort Lee incessantly called,” Sokolich said, as quoted by the Bergen Record. “We called the contacts that we always called whenever there was an event. We did not depart from protocol that had been established for 20 years. … We called everybody that we were supposed to call.”
Source
|
On December 22 2013 05:58 Poffel wrote:Show nested quote +On December 22 2013 05:26 Nyxisto wrote:
That's exactly the kind of reasoning that has always been used and was always wrong. "Hey the role of women really has changed in the last two decades, but now they finally reached their biological barrier!". History has proven this wrong dozens of times, and who says that it's true know? I wouldn't be surprised if we see equal amounts of female and male engineers in fifty years, and women will be represented equally in nearly every field of work.
Ridiculous. If "equal representation in nearly every field" was the goal, then we must model our ideas of women rights after the vanguard of equality that is the Islamic world - given that evidence clearly shows that the percentile of women in science per country (worldwide) is by far the highest in Turkey (~865 or 39% of BAs in physics are female in Turkey, compared to e.g. ~792 or 21% in the USA).
But you do know that Turkey is not the Iran right? In fact you're not even allowed to wear a head rag in public buildings.
|
United States43607 Posts
On December 22 2013 04:18 sam!zdat wrote: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! Show nested quote +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. Show nested quote +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 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? 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. Show nested quote +On December 22 2013 01:54 stuhowell wrote: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 Show nested quote +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 Show nested quote +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.
You're not the enemy, you're just completely clueless. When you question why it's worth being pro gay rights you don't know what the fuck because you've never been denied basic social rights due to your sexuality. When you're bitching about how they're just pro things and get mad when people aren't pro things all you're really doing is displaying a massive ignorance towards the real problems due to never having to deal with that shit because of your privilege. Going "you're British" shows you've completely missed the point, my nationality has zero relationship with my ability to recognise this issue. Your dismissal of being pro things as mindless while living in a society built by people just like you to be pro people just like you could not be more relevant. Your base setting is pro you, what you're doing in this topic is chanting "pro upper class white boys" and you're doing it with a hundred times the mindlessness of the feminists you whine about. It's so automatic you don't even realise you're chanting and yet it's far more poisonous than the demands for basic safety and equal rights you're opposed to.
Feminism isn't mindless, they're people who have reached a conclusion different to yours and for some reason you think it's clever to be against them. Your argument is, at its core, if a group are chanting slogans then I'm opposed to what they're chanting.
|
On December 22 2013 07:39 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On December 22 2013 05:58 Poffel wrote:On December 22 2013 05:26 Nyxisto wrote:
That's exactly the kind of reasoning that has always been used and was always wrong. "Hey the role of women really has changed in the last two decades, but now they finally reached their biological barrier!". History has proven this wrong dozens of times, and who says that it's true know? I wouldn't be surprised if we see equal amounts of female and male engineers in fifty years, and women will be represented equally in nearly every field of work.
Ridiculous. If "equal representation in nearly every field" was the goal, then we must model our ideas of women rights after the vanguard of equality that is the Islamic world - given that evidence clearly shows that the percentile of women in science per country (worldwide) is by far the highest in Turkey (~865 or 39% of BAs in physics are female in Turkey, compared to e.g. ~792 or 21% in the USA). But you do know that Turkey is not the Iran right? In fact you're not even allowed to wear a head rag in public buildings.
First, you should get your facts straight - especially if you claim something like "in fact", you might want to take a look at wikipedia to verify that the law you're jabbering about has not been changed in the past decade - which it, in factual fact, has. But even if we neglect that you pulled this "fact" out of your ass as well, do you really think that Turkey, which you may or may not find to deserve the label "Islamic" with its population of 99.8% Muslims (source), is the hallmark of feminist justice?
|
On December 22 2013 07:44 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On December 22 2013 04:18 sam!zdat wrote: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: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: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. You're not the enemy, you're just completely clueless. When you question why it's worth being pro gay rights you don't know what the fuck because you've never been denied basic social rights due to your sexuality. When you're bitching about how they're just pro things and get mad when people aren't pro things all you're really doing is displaying a massive ignorance towards the real problems due to never having to deal with that shit because of your privilege. Going "you're British" shows you've completely missed the point, my nationality has zero clue with my ability to recognise this issue. Your dismissal of being pro things as mindless while living in a society built by people just like you to be pro people just like you could not be more relevant. Your base setting is pro you, what you're doing in this topic is chanting "pro upper class white boys" and you're doing it with a hundred times the mindlessness of the feminists you whine about. It's so automatic you don't even realise you're chanting and yet it's far more poisonous than the demands for basic safety and equal rights you're opposed to. Feminism isn't mindless, they're people who have reached a conclusion different to yours and for some reason you think it's clever to be against them. Your argument is, at its core, if a group are chanting slogans then I'm opposed to what they're chanting.
Well said 
|
On December 22 2013 07:44 KwarK wrote:
Your base setting is pro you, what you're doing in this topic is chanting "pro upper class white boys" and you're doing it with a hundred times the mindlessness of the feminists you whine about.
bah
you're the one attacking people based on their subject positions, not me.
but clearly, i am just a servant of the patriarchy. it must be so, because I dare to challenge "feminism." what a nice, a priori defense of any possible objection feminism has built into it. i wish I had some objective enemies I could go purge, also
I wonder what specifically you think I think that you object to? like, what actual concrete thing do I advocate that is involved in oppressing women? If anything, I am trying to do some good by criticizing an echo-chamber ideology. unless you think that it is our duty never to criticize feminism because maybe somebody's feelings will get hurt. i bet that's going to help a lot
On December 22 2013 07:44 KwarK wrote:
When you question why it's worth being pro gay rights
wtf you tool when did I ever say anything remotely like this. what gay rights am I opposed to? jesus christ
all of you are a bunch of fucking manichees
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
