| Forum Index > Closed |
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. | ||
|
Stratos_speAr
United States6959 Posts
On December 24 2013 09:26 Crushinator wrote: It is usually the advocate of a concept that provides evidence or reason that the concept is useful. It's sexist because it's culturally accepted, and this is the same throughout many, many professional fields. | ||
|
Shiragaku
Hong Kong4308 Posts
On December 24 2013 09:52 Boblion wrote: 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. I have yet to meet an individual in person who has taken him seriously and that includes the entire philosophy department at my university. And in general, it is not like people take philosophy seriously anymore, and when I see philosophy being used, it is more often than not to explain why philosophy is useless and outdated. | ||
|
sam!zdat
United States5559 Posts
american phil departments are the wrong place to look | ||
|
farvacola
United States18831 Posts
On December 24 2013 09:57 Shiragaku wrote: I have yet to meet an individual in person who has taken him seriously and that includes the entire philosophy department at my university. And in general, it is not like people take philosophy seriously anymore, and when I see philosophy being used, it is more often than not to explain why philosophy is useless and outdated. Your philosophy department sucks, sorry. For better or worse, you are hardly alone in this regard though. Oftentimes, developing an intellect throughout ones' life seems to hinge on having the fortune of meeting the "right" people. The moral of the story is to always keep looking. | ||
|
Nyxisto
Germany6287 Posts
| ||
|
sam!zdat
United States5559 Posts
there's definitely a reason I decided to study literature and not philosophy though, even though I really read more philosophy than fiction | ||
|
radscorpion9
Canada2252 Posts
On December 24 2013 10:11 Nyxisto wrote: Well to be fair from the outside contemporary philosophy just looks like useless semantics that won't make you any wiser even if you study it for two decades It also doesn't help that people can apparently get away with submitting complete jibberish as a philosophical article in what should be respectable journals like Critical Theory, and get away with it, because apparently even the editors don't understand what they're talking about. Noam Chomsky thinks its embarrassing too, but I get the feeling that some people here don't care too much what he thinks  Link: Fashionable Nonsense I do remember studying Kant and Hume in first year philosophy. Now *that* was a great experience. | ||
|
farvacola
United States18831 Posts
 | ||
|
sam!zdat
United States5559 Posts
but yeah, many people have made careers on gibberish. Whatcha gon' do | ||
|
Deleted User 183001
2939 Posts
On December 24 2013 09:09 Mercy13 wrote: 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. The patriarchy is not at all institutionalized. Women have almost completely equal rights in the USA at least (I add "almost", in case there's something I'm missing). I'll get to what the problem is, which is the culture. An anecdote or two about dudes talking dirty is irrelevant to the concept of an institutionalized patriarchy (no rules exist that establish this) that does not exist. In fact, I don't know what point you're trying to establish with it. Could your clarify please? What your friend says is true, but it's implicitly exaggerating the situation bigtime. + Show Spoiler + Take it from an engineer who's worked in the big bad corporate office. Comments about women sometimes do happen and they're retarded, but they're a lot rarer than you think and they're often things you'd be fine telling your grandma no-problem. In my past internships, in my "immature" 18-22 age group, there wasn't much talk even amongst ourselves that would make girls feel uncomfortable. Even the verbally coarsest dudes among my fellow interns and younger full-time employees I knew weren't too bad either. We engineers are a bunch of nerds dude. We have a lot more on our minds than demeaning girls. The most "uncomforting" statement typically was if a girl wasn't pretty or had a bad personality, and it was never said to them directly that they would be made uncomfortable. And believe it or not, girls do the same exact thing lol. The problem is there's a few dedicated dumbasses who no one likes who say/do terrible or extremely twisted things and on top of that say it directly to the ladies, and gives the image that the whole of the engineering field hates women. Also, being a woman in engineering has pretty good advantages, but I'll seriously be going off-topic if we start discussing that. Racism is not institutionalized, and even in carefree, liberal, chillax, diverse California you'll see a lot of racism and prejudice. I've heard things that would make your blood freeze. So why does this racism exist if it's not institutionalized? Because the culture works that way. So why does prejudice to women exist? That's how the culture works. It is not at all an issue of institution, because no institution to my knowledge exists in the US that says women shall have rules restricting their freedoms and liberties. By all rules and laws across the board, there is nothing impeding women. It's the culture. The general culture at least here in the US is still not an enabler of women to the same degree it is with men. US culture and various sub-cultures feed a lot of garbage, but it hits girls a lot harder, and it pushes the good stuff (work hard, be well-educated, etc.) a lot harder on guys than on girls. This is just one issue, but one of the more serious ones. If the culture had the same targeting and same effect on guys and girls, my field and other fields in engineering (which have it worse) wouldn't practically be a brotherhood. You talk to people about their past, their interests, their upbringing. Talk to people who are engineers or some other very ambitious academic field. They grew up some way or another learning to have a good direction, and set forth working at it. So why is there such a discrepancy between male and female? Because far more males were pushed towards this than girls were, because that's the way the culture works. People from other countries with hard-working cultures typically push their kids hardcore, regardless of gender. To no surprise, most of the girls in my department and other engineering departments in my undergrad were first-generation-born Americans (usually East/South Asian), and some even lived their early years elsewhere. Another bad effect in US culture that kills the potential of women in the workplace is the implied idea that at some point they should be homemakers and won't pursue career goals on a scale of men. Even for college-educated women, there is the concept of a "Mrs. Degree", where women will go to university, get a 4-year degree (usually in some field that you'd need a Ph.D to do something useful with like arts/humanities), and then not do much or anything with it past a low-end job in the hopes of finding a guy with good academic/financial achievement. Compare this to the ladies with the mindset of going into university with the direction of establishing a career of their interests and field of study and you'll see a colossal difference. The latter has long-term goals for economic and social independence and contributing to and braving in a professional world where female involvement is minimal. My fucking hat off to them for breaking the mold. Again, it's a stupid culture thing. Yeah it took until the 1950s or 1960s for American society to realize that blacks and women were human beings too and give them equal rights (especially terminating the South's Jim Crow laws), which was a huge stepping stone to erasing a deep shitstain in the "land of the free". The institutional side is equal nowadays (or if anything, it gives preference to racial minorities and women). However, it is the culture that still damns them, even where the institution does not. But until American culture changes, especially in the more socially "conservative" areas, the culture will still relegate women to a secondary role in the professional world. This is nothing any amount of laws or affirmative action can fix. That business doesn't change mindsets or ideology or culture. The solution to most of America's social problems, including the female under-representation in most professional areas, lies in transforming the culture itself to be more equal. America has the world's most developed economy, technical fields, and infrastructure. Its legal system and institutions are dedicated to equality regardless of a person's heritage, race, or gender (aside from some affirmative action I guess). Everything is in place. The only thing that needs changing is the culture, and the problem is, that is the most difficult thing to change. On December 24 2013 08:37 ComaDose wrote: dude you totes did imply that outside your program you expect more than 60% of women to be brain dead twats I quoted you just there Umm yeah... of course. Now you're saying I "expect". Keep changing the story. We do not care about your attempts at trolling and ad hominem attacks. Sorry if I hurt your ego in the process, but I was having too much fun XD. Go attack Acrofales. He just said all feminists are idiots in his opinion. It's not even something you have to misinterpret like the silly stuff you tried with me. He straight up said it. Aren't you mad? I'm not. I may not agree with his opinion, but I certainly am not going to attack him for it. I am a bit curious, no doubt, but he is entitled to it and I respect him for it. Rather than attacking him as you did with me (and failed sadly), I would kindly ask him why. | ||
|
MoltkeWarding
5195 Posts
Given Moltke was once expelled from dorms at university for assaulting a female student Nope. For those who are curious about that story, the assault actually occurred the other way around. In fact, the reason I received the larger share of the censure was precisely the radical feminist belief which assumed that in any physical altercation, the responsibility must lie with the male. That, along with my hedonistic belief at the time, that defending myself against transparent distortions of fact was beneath me. Apparently KwarK sees this as evidence of deranged attitudes toward the opposite sex. I confess that anyone should behave with a sense of chivalry in this day and age must appear strange to KwarK, since chivalry, like most other human virtues, is dependent upon a strong rootedness in an exclusive sense of identity, among which, the consciousness of gender. So much for KwarK the egalitarian feminist. Once again Kwark spins a story to his own liking and enlarges upon the essence of a situation to make up the facts which sustain them. There is more in this obtuse manner than an inability to articulate subtlety however. For KwarK, the reality of a situation is subordinate to the moral clarity he receives from the violence of a certain impression. Once received, that impression is used to re-translate the original story into his personal fairy tale. By this double counterfeit of the material fact, he dispenses with the vigours normally associated with analytical thinking, as well as factual restraints, and comfortably so. After all, for KwarK, the prima facie is the most important, and indeed, the deepest level of analysis, because the mere posture of cultural criticism is sufficient to convince him of his own intellectual sovereignty. And let us say this much, that KwarK is not some kind of sublime moron whom it is our collective duty to mock. His arguments are largely the kind of middle-brow opinions typical of what is now churned out by public education all over the Western World. He himself is merely another victim of the Dunning-Kruger effect. was physically disciplined by his mother well into his adult life and got into a physical fight with his own mother I think post count is probably not the thing to go after him on regarding his relationship with the opposite sex. Now, I was raised in an abusive and oppressive home, there is no denying it. KwarK would probably recoil from his abstract notions of injustice if he had an inkling of the real experience of violence some of us have encountered perpetually during our childhoods. That such an upbringing impacts a person's perceptions and character is also beyond doubt. Beyond the morbid however, KwarK's pseudo-freudian insinuations about my abnormal development of a psychosexual infantilism are hilarious. His philosophical implications are equally disturbing. Apparently, KwarK believes that too intense a contact with the abnormal is a cause of being disconnected with reality. He of course will never know. Learning about the world from his computer desk, his sheltered, bien pensant idealism derived most its strictures from lazy reductionisms about human nature. These admittedly have their place in discussions also. Unfortunately however, when KwarK accuses others of being victims of fantastical thinking, and implicitly, calls himself the realist, he appears to be genuinely unaware of his own limitations. Among these limitations is a complete self-obliviousness. Take his fundamentally dishonest statement: Not that we should make this personal, just that if we are going to do personal attacks post count is an odd one to go with. The personal exchange referred to was the following: Kwark: Reality once again passing Moltke by. Moltke: You will forgive me if I claim the advantage of realism vis-a-vis someone with over 20k posts on this forum. Once again, the real point of this exchange was missed by KwarK completely. I used the ad hominem in this case not because I wanted to scornfully lash out at KwarK, but because I was trying to demonstrate to him something about his own rhetorical habits. I was trying to make him look into the looking glass, as it were, and see in his contempt of my arguments a reflection of himself. (I used a similar tactic on Nyxisto.) All this, alas, was lost on poor, simple KwarK, who has an uncanny proclivity to miss the real point of almost everything written with the least touch of nuance. A few weeks ago, one of his most self-revealing outbursts against me was the statement that I never bother to make an argument, because doing so would be too difficult. With apologies to presumption, I do not think that it is my diligence that is the limiting factor in all such misunderstandings. In this light, his constant protestations of “you are not getting it” are transparently funny. No, KwarK. The truth is we get it. We arrived at where you now stand, and we have moved on. His statement that arguments shouldn't get personal is also hilarious in light of his personal habits. One begins to wonder whether he is aware at all of how he behaves to other people. With all his limitations, he is good at doing some things. To borrow the rhetoric of immigration apologists, KwarK does the dirty work that most serious thinkers will not condescend to do. When there are instances of idiocy too low to be worth refutation, KwarK swoops in with the enthusiasm of a starving panther to prey on such weak vermin. He is the upholder of some standard of common sense against the lowest ignorance of the unwashed. If he is no Napoleon or Davout, he is at least a competent Captain of the National Guard. He does well when his ambitions do not exceed his station. It is only when he has a Napoleon complex that he really becomes troublesome. | ||
|
Nyxisto
Germany6287 Posts
On December 24 2013 10:20 sam!zdat wrote: it really just depends what you mean by contemporary philosophy. But sure, there's lots of angel counting going on. On the other hand, stuff that might seem like angel counting to you might actually be something of real importance. Well what I'm talking about is more or less the whole post-structuralism department. Although I'm not really sure if that's what I think it is because frankly I don't understand any of it. I think most of it is some kind of linguistic clusterfuck and non of it has to do anything with the actual real world anymore | ||
|
darthfoley
United States8003 Posts
| ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
also paglia is a troll there's no real debate about the anthropological facts and histories of patriarchy and oppression of women. just recognize that your personal experience and ideology may not replace actual knowledge of how things came about. i mean some of this is just high school history 101 stuff. not sure where all the patriarchy deniers are coming from | ||
|
sam!zdat
United States5559 Posts
| ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
| ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On December 23 2013 08:08 sam!zdat wrote: wtf is an innate ability nyxisto the point is that kwark's crypto-christian belief in the androgyny of the soul is hilarious. That's all. As anyone who's ever been through puberty knows, the chemicals running through your brain change the way you think, and men and women have different mixes of chemicals. Qed I think not much soul metaphysics is required here, merely the abstract notion of person. that is not invented by christians but it is nice sometimes. | ||
|
sam!zdat
United States5559 Posts
it IS a pauline idea though | ||
|
jellyjello
Korea (South)664 Posts
On December 24 2013 10:26 JudicatorHammurabi wrote: So why does prejudice to women exist? That's how the culture works. It is not at all an issue of institution, because no institution to my knowledge exists in the US that says women shall have rules restricting their freedoms and liberties. By all rules and laws across the board, there is nothing impeding women. It's the culture. The general culture at least here in the US is still not an enabler of women to the same degree it is with men. US culture and various sub-cultures feed a lot of garbage, but it hits girls a lot harder, and it pushes the good stuff (work hard, be well-educated, etc.) a lot harder on guys than on girls. This is just one issue, but one of the more serious ones. If the culture had the same targeting and same effect on guys and girls, my field and other fields in engineering (which have it worse) wouldn't practically be a brotherhood. You talk to people about their past, their interests, their upbringing. Talk to people who are engineers or some other very ambitious academic field. They grew up some way or another learning to have a good direction, and set forth working at it. So why is there such a discrepancy between male and female? Because far more males were pushed towards this than girls were, because that's the way the culture works. People from other countries with hard-working cultures typically push their kids hardcore, regardless of gender. To no surprise, most of the girls in my department and other engineering departments in my undergrad were first-generation-born Americans (usually East/South Asian), and some even lived their early years elsewhere. Another bad effect in US culture that kills the potential of women in the workplace is the implied idea that at some point they should be homemakers and won't pursue career goals on a scale of men. Even for college-educated women, there is the concept of a "Mrs. Degree", where women will go to university, get a 4-year degree (usually in some field that you'd need a Ph.D to do something useful with like arts/humanities), and then not do much or anything with it past a low-end job in the hopes of finding a guy with good academic/financial achievement. Compare this to the ladies with the mindset of going into university with the direction of establishing a career of their interests and field of study and you'll see a colossal difference. The latter has long-term goals for economic and social independence and contributing to and braving in a professional world where female involvement is minimal. My fucking hat off to them for breaking the mold. Again, it's a stupid culture thing. Yeah it took until the 1950s or 1960s for American society to realize that blacks and women were human beings too and give them equal rights (especially terminating the South's Jim Crow laws), which was a huge stepping stone to erasing a deep shitstain in the "land of the free". The institutional side is equal nowadays (or if anything, it gives preference to racial minorities and women). However, it is the culture that still damns them, even where the institution does not. But until American culture changes, especially in the more socially "conservative" areas, the culture will still relegate women to a secondary role in the professional world. This is nothing any amount of laws or affirmative action can fix. That business doesn't change mindsets or ideology or culture. The solution to most of America's social problems, including the female under-representation in most professional areas, lies in transforming the culture itself to be more equal. America has the world's most developed economy, technical fields, and infrastructure. Its legal system and institutions are dedicated to equality regardless of a person's heritage, race, or gender (aside from some affirmative action I guess). Everything is in place. The only thing that needs changing is the culture, and the problem is, that is the most difficult thing to change. Culture is the underlying driving force, but it is not the problem. Culture is not something that can be easily shaped or formed by one side, but rather it's something that we, as society, have created it over a long period of time. When you say the culture is the problem, you are basically saying we are the problem. Our decisions and choices over the years have created this culture. It's the way we, as a collective mindset, have decided that this is the how we want our culture to be. You even have a perfect example in your own narrative about women going to a 4-year college and doing nothing with it. Maybe it's because that's what they desire, and they made their choices of living such a life. And you know what? That's not necessarily a bad thing because that's just the way our culture is. To a lot of women, having a family and raising kids are more important than anything else. It doesn't make them stupid or retarded. After all, this is the "land of the free", ain't it? | ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
| ||
| ||
WardiTV Summer Champion…
Playoffs Day 3
Clem vs ClassicLIVE!
MaxPax vs TBD
[ Submit Event ] |
|
StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War Britney Dota 2  96993Sea  19138Calm  5119Jaedong 1934Rain 1511Horang2 1411Flash 1073Bisu 961actioN 674EffOrt 384[ Show more ] Counter-Strike Other Games singsing2072 B2W.Neo1547 crisheroes317 hiko288 DeMusliM280 Hui .130 SortOf121 rGuardiaN33 ZerO(Twitch)15 Organizations StarCraft: Brood War Other Games StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War |
|
Replay Cast
LiuLi Cup
MaxPax vs TriGGeR
ByuN vs herO
Cure vs Rogue
Classic vs HeRoMaRinE
Cosmonarchy
OyAji vs Sziky
Sziky vs WolFix
WolFix vs OyAji
Big Brain Bouts
Iba vs GgMaChine
TriGGeR vs Bunny
Reynor vs Classic
Serral vs Clem
BSL Team Wars
Team Hawk vs Team Dewalt
BSL Team Wars
Team Hawk vs Team Bonyth
SC Evo League
TaeJa vs Cure
Rogue vs threepoint
ByuN vs Creator
MaNa vs Classic
Maestros of the Game
ShoWTimE vs Cham
GuMiho vs Ryung
Zoun vs Spirit
Rogue vs MaNa
[BSL 2025] Weekly
SC Evo League
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
