|
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. |
you have to shock people in order to get them to think, because of the inertia of ideology. that's the whole point of the concept of "estrangement." it's also why you need to take care to distinguish between the literal sense of what somebody says, and the point they are getting at.
|
On December 24 2013 08:49 sam!zdat wrote:Show nested quote +On December 24 2013 08:16 Crushinator wrote:
It is nice to have a vague and highly abstract concept like patriarchy to blame for everything. so what you should try to do is understand what it is and how it functions, to make it less vague. it's true that what most feminists talk about when they talk about the "patriarchy" is vague and useless, but it's also true that there actually is a patriarchy and that our entire social fabric is shot through with its insidious tentacles.
I don't think anything exist in contemporary society that is worthy of the name patriarchy.
|
On December 24 2013 08:50 sam!zdat wrote:
you have to shock people in order to get them to think, because of the inertia of ideology
It is also the inertia of demagoguery and the vanguard for the spectacle.
|
On December 24 2013 08:51 Crushinator wrote:Show nested quote +On December 24 2013 08:49 sam!zdat wrote:On December 24 2013 08:16 Crushinator wrote:
It is nice to have a vague and highly abstract concept like patriarchy to blame for everything. so what you should try to do is understand what it is and how it functions, to make it less vague. it's true that what most feminists talk about when they talk about the "patriarchy" is vague and useless, but it's also true that there actually is a patriarchy and that our entire social fabric is shot through with its insidious tentacles. I don't think anything exist in contemporary society that is worthy of he name patriarchy.
then you are sadly mistaken. most likely, you just don't have any properly theoretical conception of what is meant by the term. the patriarchy is just part of our ideology. it is "pouvoir" in the foucauldian sense, it is not some concrete instutition which is the sort of stupid, obvious thing you look for and don't find, it is much more subtle than that. It absolutely exists. Don't let the voguish stupidity of the way most people use the term discount the idea itself.
|
On December 24 2013 08:53 sam!zdat wrote:Show nested quote +On December 24 2013 08:51 Crushinator wrote:On December 24 2013 08:49 sam!zdat wrote:On December 24 2013 08:16 Crushinator wrote:
It is nice to have a vague and highly abstract concept like patriarchy to blame for everything. so what you should try to do is understand what it is and how it functions, to make it less vague. it's true that what most feminists talk about when they talk about the "patriarchy" is vague and useless, but it's also true that there actually is a patriarchy and that our entire social fabric is shot through with its insidious tentacles. I don't think anything exist in contemporary society that is worthy of he name patriarchy. then you are sadly mistaken. most likely, you just don't have any properly theoretical conception of what is meant by the term. the patriarchy is just part of our ideology. it is "pouvoir" in the foucauldian sense, it is not some concrete instutition which is the sort of stupid, obvious thing you look for and don't find, it is much more subtle than that. It absolutely exists. Don't let the voguish stupidity of the way most people use the term discount the idea itself.
Yeah that is just a bunch of bullshit to me, sorry.
|
On December 24 2013 08:49 Shiragaku wrote:Show nested quote +On December 24 2013 08:03 sam!zdat wrote:On December 24 2013 07:29 ComaDose wrote:
if you believe that greater than 60% of women are braindead twats and that you have a high oponion of women, then I don't know how to respond they are, and it's because of the patriarchy. Most men are also braindead twats, probably also because of the patriarchy. We should all smash the patriarchy and stop being braindead twats, but dogmatic anti-essentialism isn't the way to do it
paglia is just the zizek of feminism, basically. Which is why I like her :D So the presentation and the shock value seems to be more important these days, even amongst the most brilliant. I am becoming more understanding to why so many people were happy to take many French charlatans seriously now.
Are you thinking about Baudrillard ? :D
|
I am just firmed in my belief that all modern feminists are idiots.
With this I don't mean all modern feminists, I mean all of those who get any media attention at all. I haven't seen a single one who I can't attribute off-the-wall cray cray remarks to. Whether that is pro-man feminists like Camille Paglia, or anti-man feminists. They all should just shut the fuck up because they are doing their cause more harm than good (assuming their cause is the plight of women and not just the sound of their own voice).
|
On December 24 2013 08:53 sam!zdat wrote:Show nested quote +On December 24 2013 08:51 Crushinator wrote:On December 24 2013 08:49 sam!zdat wrote:On December 24 2013 08:16 Crushinator wrote:
It is nice to have a vague and highly abstract concept like patriarchy to blame for everything. so what you should try to do is understand what it is and how it functions, to make it less vague. it's true that what most feminists talk about when they talk about the "patriarchy" is vague and useless, but it's also true that there actually is a patriarchy and that our entire social fabric is shot through with its insidious tentacles. I don't think anything exist in contemporary society that is worthy of he name patriarchy. then you are sadly mistaken. most likely, you just don't have any properly theoretical conception of what is meant by the term. the patriarchy is just part of our ideology. it is "pouvoir" in the foucauldian sense, it is not some concrete instutition which is the sort of stupid, obvious thing you look for and don't find, it is much more subtle than that. It absolutely exists. Don't let the voguish stupidity of the way most people use the term discount the idea itself.
I'm not sure if this is quite what you are getting at, but I have some female friends in the engineering field, and they talk about how male engineers often say things to them of a sexual nature that make them feel uncomfortable. Also, many of my male coworkers say similar things about our female coworkers behind their backs. I know that this is purely anecdotal, but it may be fair to say that these attitudes are prevalent.
The "patriarchy" may not be institutionalized to the same extent as it used to be, and the cultural/societal sexism that remains may not be as harmful to women, but that just makes it much more difficult to get rid of.
|
On December 24 2013 09:06 Boblion wrote:Show nested quote +On December 24 2013 08:49 Shiragaku wrote:On December 24 2013 08:03 sam!zdat wrote:On December 24 2013 07:29 ComaDose wrote:
if you believe that greater than 60% of women are braindead twats and that you have a high oponion of women, then I don't know how to respond they are, and it's because of the patriarchy. Most men are also braindead twats, probably also because of the patriarchy. We should all smash the patriarchy and stop being braindead twats, but dogmatic anti-essentialism isn't the way to do it
paglia is just the zizek of feminism, basically. Which is why I like her :D So the presentation and the shock value seems to be more important these days, even amongst the most brilliant. I am becoming more understanding to why so many people were happy to take many French charlatans seriously now. Are you thinking about Baudrillard ? :D
Baudrillard is actually really solid in my opinion. My biggest qualm with him is his writing style which makes it only available to people who are specialized in philosophy or with a lot of time on their hands.
I was thinking more about Lacan, Derrida, Deleuze, and so on.
|
@ crush, well, you're wrong, and just resistant to ideas that are more abstract than you are used to. But I don't care, this is not MY crusade
@ mercy, sure, that's an example I suppose. It's at least thinking along the right lines.
remember the patriarchy is not jus 'men against women', it can be bad for men also. For example the kind of stuff kwawk is concerned about, with pressure to perform a certain sort of pathological masculinity
|
part of that has to do with specifically 20th c french academic culture. Which americans try to ape, incompetently, without getting the joke
|
On December 24 2013 09:09 Mercy13 wrote:Show nested quote +On December 24 2013 08:53 sam!zdat wrote:On December 24 2013 08:51 Crushinator wrote:On December 24 2013 08:49 sam!zdat wrote:On December 24 2013 08:16 Crushinator wrote:
It is nice to have a vague and highly abstract concept like patriarchy to blame for everything. so what you should try to do is understand what it is and how it functions, to make it less vague. it's true that what most feminists talk about when they talk about the "patriarchy" is vague and useless, but it's also true that there actually is a patriarchy and that our entire social fabric is shot through with its insidious tentacles. I don't think anything exist in contemporary society that is worthy of he name patriarchy. then you are sadly mistaken. most likely, you just don't have any properly theoretical conception of what is meant by the term. the patriarchy is just part of our ideology. it is "pouvoir" in the foucauldian sense, it is not some concrete instutition which is the sort of stupid, obvious thing you look for and don't find, it is much more subtle than that. It absolutely exists. Don't let the voguish stupidity of the way most people use the term discount the idea itself. I'm not sure if this is quite what you are getting at, but I have some female friends in the engineering field, and they talk about how male engineers often say things to them of a sexual nature that make them feel uncomfortable. Also, many of my male coworkers say similar things about our female coworkers behind their backs. I know that this is purely anecdotal, but it may be fair to say that these attitudes are prevalent. The "patriarchy" may not be institutionalized to the same extent as it used to be, and the cultural/societal sexism that remains may not be as harmful to women, but that just makes it much more difficult to get rid of.
In my opinion, sexual comments at work have little to do with instittionalized sexism than they do with standards of professionalism. These standards are probably especially low in fields that have few women. A man showing sexual interest is not sexism by itself, surely.
|
On December 24 2013 09:22 sam!zdat wrote:
@ crush, well, you're wrong, and just resistant to ideas that are more abstract than you are used to. But I don't care, this is not MY crusade
@ mercy, sure, that's an example I suppose. It's at least thinking along the right lines.
remember the patriarchy is not jus 'men against women', it can be bad for men also. For example the kind of stuff kwawk is concerned about, with pressure to perform a certain sort of pathological masculinity
It is usually the advocate of a concept that provides evidence or reason that the concept is useful.
|
On December 24 2013 08:21 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On December 24 2013 08:18 JudicatorHammurabi wrote:On December 24 2013 07:50 KwarK wrote:On December 24 2013 07:11 DeepElemBlues wrote:On December 24 2013 04:13 KwarK wrote:Paglia's argument was that women should be grateful to men for creating the world they live in. That was the argument being made. The modern economy, with its vast production and distribution network, is a male epic, in which women have found a productive role—but women were not its author. Surely, modern women are strong enough now to give credit where credit is due! Men created it all, women were not the authors. Modern women should be grateful that men created it. You agreed with me that that argument was indecent, you just don't seem to have read the quote I was referring to because it makes exactly that argument. Well yes women should be grateful that men built the "vast production and distribution network." The same way men should be grateful that women wiped their asses and taught them to read and kissed their ouchies and all that. Obviously to some people men get more credit for doing that stuff than women do for doing that other stuff but I don't see where one is more important than the other. You're not getting it. Men and women didn't collectively get together and share out tasks then appreciate each other for doing a good job, men systematically oppressed women, denied them power and forced them into the domestic sphere. Women shouldn't get credit for selflessly choosing to be domestic sphere because they didn't, they were forced there. Likewise men shouldn't get credit for taking all the power, making all the decisions and doing all the politics/finance/industry while women didn't do any of it because the reason women didn't do any of it is because they weren't allowed to. If we agree on a division of labour and then someone does their job well then you recognise that and say "nice job". If someone forces you not to do the job, insists they do it and then monopolises the rewards of the job while forcing you to do a shitty job, they're not doing you any favours. Unless you're suggesting that had women been able to enter politics human progress wouldn't have happened I don't see any reason women should be grateful for what men did during their oppression. The same things still would have happened, it's just some of the hands making history would have been female. In light of the suppression of women in professional, "world-changing" work to this day in all but a handful of countries, I think it's foolish (you're not doing it, I'm speaking in general) to view history in terms of "men and women" (something that is already foolish). It should be viewed as in terms of people overall. The conditions were there for men, and not for women. Women should not be seen as some different entity. Humans are humans. Look at it in terms of the history of civilizations. The conditions were there, for example, for western/central European countries (and somehow Russia recovered as they always do from catastrophe) to lead the way in human technological progress, when the Mongols destroyed the greatest, most advanced, and richest civilizations in the world, from the Chinese dynasties in the east to much of the Middle East and Kievan Rus in the west, it allowed western/central Europe to proceed without competition, unsurprisingly drawing lots of knowledge and inspiration from the advanced Islamic world which had fallen into decay with the Mongol conquests. Without the Mongols, among many other things, the world would be a lot different. Now should "lesser nations" thank and kiss ass to the "greater nations" (who are also exploiting them lol) for this progress that is the result of the "greater nations" not getting assfucked to oblivion like many "lesser nations" were in the past? From your perspective, maybe, but it's simply very narrow to look at an oppressed group and tell them "You should thank us for doing things because there were conditions in play that never allowed you to do those things". This is why I don't look down on countries on the basis that they don't contribute to overall human progress like developed, advanced nations do, since the conditions are not there for them to be able to do so, just as you can't look down on women for not contributing much in the span of human history, since the conditions were not and still aren't there. To expect them to be thankful for the achievements of others that they couldn't contribute to because they were oppressed, is like expecting black slaves back in the day to be thankful that their slave owners provided food and shelter and clothing for them despite being treated worse than the mules and other animals they worked with. It's kinda twisted to be honest. I understand your view comes from an optimistic outlook on the matter when you say that women should be grateful to men. But I think it should be a matter of humans congratulating humans, instead of women congratulating men. I realize that's kind of a radical view in most of the world, but to see humans and a sub-section of humans (whether a country, gender, etc.) and their ability to make progress is based on the conditions at hand, rather than the implication that women wouldn't have been able to, is kind of my take on things. We agree wholly. I'm arguing against Paglia, you're arguing against Paglia too. You just misread my post.
It's remarkable to me that we can go through five pages of discussion about a narrow set of comments from Paglia and we are still discussing quotes out of context and with no sense of nuance gained from the previous discussion.
The division of labor is a requirement of capitalism. Women took on (or had imposed on them) the reproductive work of feeding, cleaning, nurturing, and supporting alienated labor, a predominantly male population forced into a one-dimensional role that sells its labor power in return for the minimum necessary wages required to perform the reproductive work of living for themselves and their family. Women were forced into this role because they had wombs required for child-bearing to grow the labor force in the early days of capitalism, whereas men are more expendable. It doesn't matter if a sizable percentage of men are chewed up by the conditions of wage slavery before they can have children.
When the productive work is alienated from the laborer, that is, the labor sells his labor power as such, rather than the sensual production of his labor, and is given a wage in exchange for that power in order to profit capital, the laborer is reduced to a one-sided entity: "factory worker," "office worker," etc. The construction of one-sided "identities" like "woman," "construction worker," "black man" is the result of a totalizing capitalist reduction of human beings from persons who perform and enjoy the fruits of their productive labor as well as freely engage in reproductive work, like eating, sleeping, nurturing, playing, and learning. Being a "woman" means producing and reproducing a set of social relations of labor, or the business of living life. So when Paglia says men have built the world we live in she is right. And when it is pointed out that women have largely performed the reproductive labor of society by taking care of
men and children while the men labored it is accurate. To come back and say. "Well women didn't choose that," is to
miss the point that men didn't choose wage slavery either. Patriachy is a product of capitalist labor relations.
(typed on my phone so whatever)
|
yes but the whole point of 'patriarchy' is that it is NOT an institution
|
How about we all stop taking Paglia seriously and move on with our lives?
|
On December 24 2013 08:58 Crushinator wrote:Show nested quote +On December 24 2013 08:53 sam!zdat wrote:On December 24 2013 08:51 Crushinator wrote:On December 24 2013 08:49 sam!zdat wrote:On December 24 2013 08:16 Crushinator wrote:
It is nice to have a vague and highly abstract concept like patriarchy to blame for everything. so what you should try to do is understand what it is and how it functions, to make it less vague. it's true that what most feminists talk about when they talk about the "patriarchy" is vague and useless, but it's also true that there actually is a patriarchy and that our entire social fabric is shot through with its insidious tentacles. I don't think anything exist in contemporary society that is worthy of he name patriarchy. then you are sadly mistaken. most likely, you just don't have any properly theoretical conception of what is meant by the term. the patriarchy is just part of our ideology. it is "pouvoir" in the foucauldian sense, it is not some concrete instutition which is the sort of stupid, obvious thing you look for and don't find, it is much more subtle than that. It absolutely exists. Don't let the voguish stupidity of the way most people use the term discount the idea itself. Yeah that is just a bunch of bullshit to me, sorry.
If you don't believe the patriarchy exists, consider the examples shown in the rural areas of India, and under Taliban influenced areas of Afghanistan and Pakistan. These countries are rife with 14 year olds being sold into marriage, girls schools being closed, straight up gender segregation, and regular terrorism for failing to comply with gender norms. I have not listed all of the systemic legal and cultural rules imposed on women. There are many more there.
Can you not grok this concept? When you think of those examples, does a pattern of gender roles not emerge? Men make the rules. Men imposed the rules. And men do this to maintain control over women. Do you not see what is going on there?
|
LOL he's probablty happy to admit that the patriarchy exists among a bunch of backwards savages with brown skin, just not in the enlightened happy liberal land of europe 
|
On December 24 2013 09:26 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On December 24 2013 08:21 KwarK wrote:On December 24 2013 08:18 JudicatorHammurabi wrote:On December 24 2013 07:50 KwarK wrote:On December 24 2013 07:11 DeepElemBlues wrote:On December 24 2013 04:13 KwarK wrote:Paglia's argument was that women should be grateful to men for creating the world they live in. That was the argument being made. The modern economy, with its vast production and distribution network, is a male epic, in which women have found a productive role—but women were not its author. Surely, modern women are strong enough now to give credit where credit is due! Men created it all, women were not the authors. Modern women should be grateful that men created it. You agreed with me that that argument was indecent, you just don't seem to have read the quote I was referring to because it makes exactly that argument. Well yes women should be grateful that men built the "vast production and distribution network." The same way men should be grateful that women wiped their asses and taught them to read and kissed their ouchies and all that. Obviously to some people men get more credit for doing that stuff than women do for doing that other stuff but I don't see where one is more important than the other. You're not getting it. Men and women didn't collectively get together and share out tasks then appreciate each other for doing a good job, men systematically oppressed women, denied them power and forced them into the domestic sphere. Women shouldn't get credit for selflessly choosing to be domestic sphere because they didn't, they were forced there. Likewise men shouldn't get credit for taking all the power, making all the decisions and doing all the politics/finance/industry while women didn't do any of it because the reason women didn't do any of it is because they weren't allowed to. If we agree on a division of labour and then someone does their job well then you recognise that and say "nice job". If someone forces you not to do the job, insists they do it and then monopolises the rewards of the job while forcing you to do a shitty job, they're not doing you any favours. Unless you're suggesting that had women been able to enter politics human progress wouldn't have happened I don't see any reason women should be grateful for what men did during their oppression. The same things still would have happened, it's just some of the hands making history would have been female. In light of the suppression of women in professional, "world-changing" work to this day in all but a handful of countries, I think it's foolish (you're not doing it, I'm speaking in general) to view history in terms of "men and women" (something that is already foolish). It should be viewed as in terms of people overall. The conditions were there for men, and not for women. Women should not be seen as some different entity. Humans are humans. Look at it in terms of the history of civilizations. The conditions were there, for example, for western/central European countries (and somehow Russia recovered as they always do from catastrophe) to lead the way in human technological progress, when the Mongols destroyed the greatest, most advanced, and richest civilizations in the world, from the Chinese dynasties in the east to much of the Middle East and Kievan Rus in the west, it allowed western/central Europe to proceed without competition, unsurprisingly drawing lots of knowledge and inspiration from the advanced Islamic world which had fallen into decay with the Mongol conquests. Without the Mongols, among many other things, the world would be a lot different. Now should "lesser nations" thank and kiss ass to the "greater nations" (who are also exploiting them lol) for this progress that is the result of the "greater nations" not getting assfucked to oblivion like many "lesser nations" were in the past? From your perspective, maybe, but it's simply very narrow to look at an oppressed group and tell them "You should thank us for doing things because there were conditions in play that never allowed you to do those things". This is why I don't look down on countries on the basis that they don't contribute to overall human progress like developed, advanced nations do, since the conditions are not there for them to be able to do so, just as you can't look down on women for not contributing much in the span of human history, since the conditions were not and still aren't there. To expect them to be thankful for the achievements of others that they couldn't contribute to because they were oppressed, is like expecting black slaves back in the day to be thankful that their slave owners provided food and shelter and clothing for them despite being treated worse than the mules and other animals they worked with. It's kinda twisted to be honest. I understand your view comes from an optimistic outlook on the matter when you say that women should be grateful to men. But I think it should be a matter of humans congratulating humans, instead of women congratulating men. I realize that's kind of a radical view in most of the world, but to see humans and a sub-section of humans (whether a country, gender, etc.) and their ability to make progress is based on the conditions at hand, rather than the implication that women wouldn't have been able to, is kind of my take on things. We agree wholly. I'm arguing against Paglia, you're arguing against Paglia too. You just misread my post. It's remarkable to me that we can go through five pages of discussion about a narrow set of comments from Paglia and we are still discussing quotes out of context and with no sense of nuance gained from the previous discussion. The division of labor is a requirement of capitalism. Women took on (or had imposed on them) the reproductive work of feeding, cleaning, nurturing, and supporting alienated labor, a predominantly male population forced into a one-dimensional role that sells its labor power in return for the minimum necessary wages required to perform the reproductive work of living for themselves and their family. Women were forced into this role because they had wombs required for child-bearing to grow the labor force in the early days of capitalism, whereas men are more expendable. It doesn't matter if a sizable percentage of men are chewed up by the conditions of wage slavery before they can have children. When the productive work is alienated from the laborer, that is, the labor sells his labor power as such, rather than the sensual production of his labor, and is given a wage in exchange for that power in order to profit capital, the laborer is reduced to a one-sided entity: "factory worker," "office worker," etc. The construction of one-sided "identities" like "woman," "construction worker," "black man" is the result of a totalizing capitalist reduction of human beings from persons who perform and enjoy the fruits of their productive labor as well as freely engage in reproductive work, like eating, sleeping, nurturing, playing, and learning. Being a "woman" means producing and reproducing a set of social relations of labor, or the business of living life. So when Paglia says men have built the world we live in she is right. And when it is pointed out that women have largely performed the reproductive labor of society by taking care of men and children while the men labored it is accurate. To come back and say. "Well women didn't choose that," is to miss the point that men didn't choose wage slavery either. Patriachy is a product of capitalist labor relations. (typed on my phone so whatever)
What a bunch of gobbledygook.
|
On December 24 2013 09:22 Shiragaku wrote:Show nested quote +On December 24 2013 09:06 Boblion wrote:On December 24 2013 08:49 Shiragaku wrote:On December 24 2013 08:03 sam!zdat wrote:On December 24 2013 07:29 ComaDose wrote:
if you believe that greater than 60% of women are braindead twats and that you have a high oponion of women, then I don't know how to respond they are, and it's because of the patriarchy. Most men are also braindead twats, probably also because of the patriarchy. We should all smash the patriarchy and stop being braindead twats, but dogmatic anti-essentialism isn't the way to do it
paglia is just the zizek of feminism, basically. Which is why I like her :D So the presentation and the shock value seems to be more important these days, even amongst the most brilliant. I am becoming more understanding to why so many people were happy to take many French charlatans seriously now. Are you thinking about Baudrillard ? :D Baudrillard is actually really solid in my opinion. My biggest qualm with him is his writing style which makes it only available to people who are specialized in philosophy or with a lot of time on their hands. I was thinking more about Lacan, Derrida, Deleuze, and so on.
I love Baudrillard too but many people still think that he is a charlatan 
I'm pretty sure that people take him more seriously in the US than here lol.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
