On March 20 2015 01:33 Plansix wrote: [quote] Which joke? The "get back in the kitchen" joke?
yes. btw in agame now, sry
That is a super common joke in the states and people make it all the time. It made ironically and clearly no one who makes the joke thinks women belong in the kitchen. If they did, it wouldn't be a joke.
it's strange. I would never make such a comment towards women and @ quantichawk I wasn't aware that there is a whole hashtag behind this, but I perceive this as offensive. comparing men to garbage and not even allowing them inside the house. the joke is totally lost on me. but hey, that's just like my opinion. i'm sure she intended it to be totally funny and not chauvinistic.
You well within your right to find it offensive. But I would also point out that no one is making the joke directly at you. The person is making it to their followers on social media and we can assume that they followed the person for that reason. Off color jokes are fine as long as they are only going to an intended audience and not being directed at someone who does not want to hear them.
Of course when the person is super famous(like Robert Downey Jr. level), that applies less and less because they are not really in control of who their incidence is on the internet. But if you follow a comedian you can expect an off color joke every once and a while.
I'm not "offended" by it like "ehrmagod fire her!!", but I do think it is problematic. Furthermore this is also not how it works: a PR worker got fired because she made a racial joke on twitter which magnified into a shitstorm while she was flying to south africa. so no, you don't have some "public privacy" where jokes are ok, as long as you're not super famous. if you post something on twitter it is public period. and you are responsible for it.
and the point i was trying to make was an entire other: stratos spear was attacking "the media" for portraying "feminism" the wrong way. Now I dug up an example of a woman who should be an example of equality feminism.
she is in a position of power through her writing for the guardian and she should make a prime example for her kind.
yet she is making chauvinistic jokes about men.
So it isn't the media portraying feminism wrong but feminists themselves (even those who should know better) make it easy to attack them.
and as ninazerg showed, there are problematic tendencies within feminism since at least 2nd wave. but hey, better blame it on the system media instead of taking care of them yourself.
edit: stratos: are you arguing that i should find this joke ok, because you assume i was never oppressed by a woman?
No, I'm arguing that it's OK for there to be different standards for insensitive jokes about certain groups because the context surrounding those groups and jokes are different.
Oh, and as I pointed out, plenty of feminists DO criticize overly radical feminists and call them out on their craziness.
This discussion reminds me of Fox News saying, "Where are all the Muslims denouncing radical Islamists?!" and then the rest of the world points to the dozens of instances where plenty of Muslims DO condemn radical Islam and yet they're ignored because they don't fit Fox's narrative.
(about the feminism and its radical aspects: every time you use in your phrase wording solely feminism , just take it; be prepared to take the whole radicalization of it. it's on you to first differentiate your meaning of it.)
There is no need to "differentiate your meaning of it" because, like you've been told repeatedly, feminism is about achieving equality between the sexes. If you are failing to understand that, it's on you.
there is, however, a need to define terms. equality has by no means been strictly and precisely defined by any feminist i have heard speak on the issue.
the phrase 'equality between the sexes' is rather broad and unspecific. does it refer to equality of opportunity, or parity in outcomes?
it is logical to assume that modern feminists are after equal outcomes, as equal opportunity has existed for decades. the problem is that these two definitions are mutually exclusive. in order to force equal outcomes, there must be unequal opportunity to compensate for real or perceived deficiencies in the abilities or circumstances of a given group or individual.
in either case any achievable equality is necessarily limited and conditional. modern feminist tend to ignore this fact and assert that there is some achievable state of 'total equality'.
The bold part is a serious misconception.
Just because equal opportunity exists legally does not mean it exists functionally. Work in fixing injustices doesn't end when the law says two groups are equal. Society has to actually do so as well.
On March 20 2015 03:55 Spawkuring wrote: Well I don't think that Jessica hates men or that feminists hate men, but she does show, which you also noticed, a somewhat dismissive attitude towards male issues. When you say "Besides, when women hate men, we hurt their feelings. When men hate women, they kill us", you're basically ignoring the large number of men who have been victims of domestic abuse, parental abuse, rape, and so on. That dismissiveness can be pretty alienating to a lot of people, especially those who have experienced it first-hand. It hasn't happened to me, but I can sympathize with people who've been a victim of hardship and don't like having that hardship handwaved away simply because some old white guys are in power.
One of the main issues behind that is that many “anti-feminist” use those specific issues to downplay the issues women face and distract from the discussion. You can see it going on over the course of this thread, where several people shifted the focus from issues women face in gaming to men. Many of the feminist I know have experienced this and I have as well.
That is why some feminist are dismissive, because those issues facing men do not diminish the issues women face in any way. They are separate and need to be dealt with separately. One is not more important than the other. And once again, no feminist I know would say you shouldn't advocate for it and they would likely support your effort to do so. But they are not going to stop talking about the issues women face so men can talk about theirs.
Totally agree. But why not broaden all these campaigns to include men aswell? Isn't it petty to only focus on one gender? Because what solutions to the problems are you looking for - "don't harrass women, but OK to harrass men"? - imagine how much better it would be if we didn't get stuck on gender at all and just broaden these topics to include all of us regardless of who we are.
On March 20 2015 03:55 Spawkuring wrote: Well I don't think that Jessica hates men or that feminists hate men, but she does show, which you also noticed, a somewhat dismissive attitude towards male issues. When you say "Besides, when women hate men, we hurt their feelings. When men hate women, they kill us", you're basically ignoring the large number of men who have been victims of domestic abuse, parental abuse, rape, and so on. That dismissiveness can be pretty alienating to a lot of people, especially those who have experienced it first-hand. It hasn't happened to me, but I can sympathize with people who've been a victim of hardship and don't like having that hardship handwaved away simply because some old white guys are in power.
One of the main issues behind that is that many “anti-feminist” use those specific issues to downplay the issues women face and distract from the discussion. You can see it going on over the course of this thread, where several people shifted the focus from issues women face in gaming to men. Many of the feminist I know have experienced this and I have as well.
That is why some feminist are dismissive, because those issues facing men do not diminish the issues women face in any way. They are separate and need to be dealt with separately. One is not more important than the other. And once again, no feminist I know would say you shouldn't advocate for it and they would likely support your effort to do so. But they are not going to stop talking about the issues women face so men can talk about theirs.
Totally agree. But why not broaden all these campaigns to include men aswell? Isn't it petty to only focus on one gender? Because what solutions to the problems are you looking for - "don't harrass women, but OK to harrass men"? - imagine how much better it would be if we didn't get stuck on gender at all and just broaden these topics to include all of us regardless of who we are.
I don't really think that's a valid critique. When the black community speaks out about race, no one expects them to also include Asians and the racism they face as well. If men want to raise that issue, they are more than able to do it and people would support them. There is no reason to piggy back it onto the issues women are attempting to address, as they are completely separate in every way.
On March 20 2015 03:55 Spawkuring wrote: Well I don't think that Jessica hates men or that feminists hate men, but she does show, which you also noticed, a somewhat dismissive attitude towards male issues. When you say "Besides, when women hate men, we hurt their feelings. When men hate women, they kill us", you're basically ignoring the large number of men who have been victims of domestic abuse, parental abuse, rape, and so on. That dismissiveness can be pretty alienating to a lot of people, especially those who have experienced it first-hand. It hasn't happened to me, but I can sympathize with people who've been a victim of hardship and don't like having that hardship handwaved away simply because some old white guys are in power.
One of the main issues behind that is that many “anti-feminist” use those specific issues to downplay the issues women face and distract from the discussion. You can see it going on over the course of this thread, where several people shifted the focus from issues women face in gaming to men. Many of the feminist I know have experienced this and I have as well.
That is why some feminist are dismissive, because those issues facing men do not diminish the issues women face in any way. They are separate and need to be dealt with separately. One is not more important than the other. And once again, no feminist I know would say you shouldn't advocate for it and they would likely support your effort to do so. But they are not going to stop talking about the issues women face so men can talk about theirs.
Totally agree. But why not broaden all these campaigns to include men aswell? Isn't it petty to only focus on one gender? Because what solutions to the problems are you looking for - "don't harrass women, but OK to harrass men"? - imagine how much better it would be if we didn't get stuck on gender at all and just broaden these topics to include all of us regardless of who we are.
Because the movement is about women and the suffering they've gone through. By trying to be "egalitarian", all you are doing is trying to hijack a conversation about widespread systematic discrimination against women and then trivialize it by trying to throw a discussion about men in there.
Men (and women) have all the right and room to make a movement about men's issues. However, trying to commandeer discussions about women's rights for the purpose of men's rights is just selfish and self-centered.
And no, it isn't a valid response to say, "Well why doesn't the conversation just start as being about both sexes?" That's just not how social movements work. Over-generalization kills social movements. Just look at Occupy Wall Street.
Let's be real, you only love her because you know her as someone who attacks other feminists, oh btw, did you know she is a "feminist?" It's like those black "anti-racists" who try to make themselves appear intellectual honest by pandering to the white conservative crowd and then attach anti-racist to themselves to appear like mavericks.
On March 20 2015 09:13 Shiragaku wrote: Let's be real, you only love her because you know her as someone who attacks other feminists, oh btw, did you know she was a feminist? It's like those black "anti-racists" who try to make themselves appear intellectual honest by pandering to the white conservative crowd and then attach anti-racist to themselves to appear like mavericks.
Its common for people to make a living by claiming to be a thing and then denouncing a thing. Fox News is extremely fond of them. There are a couple "feminist" running around who work for conservative think tanks and weirdly only talk about issues related to men.
She's funny. She's actually completely incapable of verbalizing what she is optimistic about. Presented the opportunity, she immediately tangents into something else that is terrible in the world.
On March 20 2015 09:13 Shiragaku wrote: Let's be real, you only love her because you know her as someone who attacks other feminists, oh btw, did you know she is a "feminist?" It's like those black "anti-racists" who try to make themselves appear intellectual honest by pandering to the white conservative crowd and then attach anti-racist to themselves to appear like mavericks.
What happened to feminism as a heterogeneous field of cultural criticism? Where did the stingy sentiment of clannish defensiveness come from?
Ultimately, the trendies of this fad fall victim to the same malaise which sterilises all other -isms. They stop thinking half-way to squat on a label so they can flaunt their feathers, and in doing so the thinking world passes them by. What is sought is not understanding, but a sense of ideological belonging.
On March 20 2015 01:33 Plansix wrote: [quote] Which joke? The "get back in the kitchen" joke?
yes. btw in agame now, sry
That is a super common joke in the states and people make it all the time. It made ironically and clearly no one who makes the joke thinks women belong in the kitchen. If they did, it wouldn't be a joke.
it's strange. I would never make such a comment towards women and @ quantichawk I wasn't aware that there is a whole hashtag behind this, but I perceive this as offensive. comparing men to garbage and not even allowing them inside the house. the joke is totally lost on me. but hey, that's just like my opinion. i'm sure she intended it to be totally funny and not chauvinistic.
You well within your right to find it offensive. But I would also point out that no one is making the joke directly at you. The person is making it to their followers on social media and we can assume that they followed the person for that reason. Off color jokes are fine as long as they are only going to an intended audience and not being directed at someone who does not want to hear them.
Of course when the person is super famous(like Robert Downey Jr. level), that applies less and less because they are not really in control of who their incidence is on the internet. But if you follow a comedian you can expect an off color joke every once and a while.
I'm not "offended" by it like "ehrmagod fire her!!", but I do think it is problematic. Furthermore this is also not how it works: a PR worker got fired because she made a racial joke on twitter which magnified into a shitstorm while she was flying to south africa. so no, you don't have some "public privacy" where jokes are ok, as long as you're not super famous. if you post something on twitter it is public period. and you are responsible for it.
and the point i was trying to make was an entire other: stratos spear was attacking "the media" for portraying "feminism" the wrong way. Now I dug up an example of a woman who should be an example of equality feminism.
she is in a position of power through her writing for the guardian and she should make a prime example for her kind.
yet she is making chauvinistic jokes about men.
So it isn't the media portraying feminism wrong but feminists themselves (even those who should know better) make it easy to attack them.
and as ninazerg showed, there are problematic tendencies within feminism since at least 2nd wave. but hey, better blame it on the system media instead of taking care of them yourself.
edit: stratos: are you arguing that i should find this joke ok, because you assume i was never oppressed by a woman?
No, I'm arguing that it's OK for there to be different standards for insensitive jokes about certain groups because the context surrounding those groups and jokes are different.
Oh, and as I pointed out, plenty of feminists DO criticize overly radical feminists and call them out on their craziness.
This discussion reminds me of Fox News saying, "Where are all the Muslims denouncing radical Islamists?!" and then the rest of the world points to the dozens of instances where plenty of Muslims DO condemn radical Islam and yet they're ignored because they don't fit Fox's narrative.
(about the feminism and its radical aspects: every time you use in your phrase wording solely feminism , just take it; be prepared to take the whole radicalization of it. it's on you to first differentiate your meaning of it.)
There is no need to "differentiate your meaning of it" because, like you've been told repeatedly, feminism is about achieving equality between the sexes. If you are failing to understand that, it's on you.
there is, however, a need to define terms. equality has by no means been strictly and precisely defined by any feminist i have heard speak on the issue.
the phrase 'equality between the sexes' is rather broad and unspecific. does it refer to equality of opportunity, or parity in outcomes?
it is logical to assume that modern feminists are after equal outcomes, as equal opportunity has existed for decades. the problem is that these two definitions are mutually exclusive. there must be unequal opportunity to compensate for real or perceived deficiencies in the abilities or circumstances of a given group or individual.
First, like Stratos_speAr said, legal equal opportunity is not the same as functional equal opportunity. Second, the two definitions are not mutually exclusive at all. Like I wrote earlier in the thread:
This is a false dichotomy, because "opportunity" should really not be solely understood as the legal possibility to get a given job whether you're male or female. If there are cultural norms and practices in a given society which lead men and women to statistically choose different paths in terms of professional formations and occupations, you could very well argue that "equal opportunity" isn't exactly achieved as long as these gender-related cultural norms continue to have a major impact on what studies and careers men and women tend to pursue in their lives. Your opportunities can also be restrained by the gender stereotypes you've been led to internalize and integrate since you were a child, by the approval or disapproval you've received around you in reaction to the preferences you've exhibited, by how you've been pushed or not pushed in certain directions by your teachers, family, friends, etc. Of course, there are plenty of people who go against the norm, who grow up in environments protecting them to an extent from internalizing certain of these gender stereotypes, etc., but looking at the representation of genders in general throughout society, these things matter. And that's not even taking into account the reticence still present at the structural and individual levels to hire women in several professions and situations.
Fighting against gender discrimination and restrictive gender norms therefore contributes to achieving both true equal opportunities and more parity in outcomes.
On March 20 2015 09:13 Shiragaku wrote: Let's be real, you only love her because you know her as someone who attacks other feminists, oh btw, did you know she is a "feminist?" It's like those black "anti-racists" who try to make themselves appear intellectual honest by pandering to the white conservative crowd and then attach anti-racist to themselves to appear like mavericks.
What happened to feminism as a heterogeneous field of cultural criticism? Where did the stingy sentiment of clannish defensiveness come from?
Ultimately, the trendies of this fad fall victim to the same malaise which sterilises all other -isms. They stop thinking half-way to squat on a label so they can flaunt their feathers, and in doing so the thinking world passes them by. What is sought is not understanding, but a sense of ideological belonging.
Vladimir Zhironovsky and his Liberal Democratic Party can call itself liberal democrat all they want, but I am pretty damn sure that liberal democrats around the world, both left and right, would unite and call bullshit. The same can be said about Camille Paglia, but hey, even as a feminist and cultural critic, she is still full of shit which is what it comes down to. I think these two posts by Kwark sums her up rather well (In response to her TIME Article It's a Man's World)
On December 17 2013 10:07 KwarK wrote: What utter rot. Of course men do a lot, we make up half the world's population. I don't think many feminists are suggesting that men are dispensable. Claiming that women should give men credit for the world they've created is a very silly idea, it was created by men because women were systematically excluded from participation. Men didn't go out of their way to create a wonderful world so women didn't have to. People created the current world and the reason men are the lions share of key historical figures is because those men marginalised women who could otherwise have also been influential. It's like saying black people should be grateful that white men voted to abolish slavery on their behalf while overlooking the fact that the reason no black senators fought against slavery was that they were too busy picking cotton.
On December 19 2013 07:05 KwarK wrote: xDaunt that Paglia quote would be frankly insulting if it wasn't so incredibly stupid. "Lesbians need strong manly men in their private lives to define themselves by resisting". "Women turn men into boys by denigrating masculinity only to find that they're hopelessly empty without the men in their lives". "Men cannot honour their commitments because lecturers indoctrinated some students".
Who are these professors going "The thing that defines male oppression, the thing men absolutely must stop doing, the thing that makes a man a man, is honouring commitments. You must stop honouring commitments."? I mean seriously, who genuinely believes this stuff?
It's utter nonsense. I can't believe you, or indeed anyone, can read that with a straight face. Paglia is clearly a moron of the highest order.
On March 20 2015 09:13 Shiragaku wrote: Let's be real, you only love her because you know her as someone who attacks other feminists, oh btw, did you know she is a "feminist?" It's like those black "anti-racists" who try to make themselves appear intellectual honest by pandering to the white conservative crowd and then attach anti-racist to themselves to appear like mavericks.
What happened to feminism as a heterogeneous field of cultural criticism? Where did the stingy sentiment of clannish defensiveness come from?
Ultimately, the trendies of this fad fall victim to the same malaise which sterilises all other -isms. They stop thinking half-way to squat on a label so they can flaunt their feathers, and in doing so the thinking world passes them by. What is sought is not understanding, but a sense of ideological belonging.
Vladimir Zhironovsky and his Liberal Democratic Party can call itself liberal democrat all they want, but I am pretty damn sure that liberal democrats around the world, both left and right, would unite and call bullshit. The same can be said about Camille Paglia, but hey, even as a feminist and cultural critic, she is still full of shit which is what it comes down to. I think these two posts by Kwark sums her up rather well (In response to her TIME Article It's a Man's World)
On December 17 2013 10:07 KwarK wrote: What utter rot. Of course men do a lot, we make up half the world's population. I don't think many feminists are suggesting that men are dispensable. Claiming that women should give men credit for the world they've created is a very silly idea, it was created by men because women were systematically excluded from participation. Men didn't go out of their way to create a wonderful world so women didn't have to. People created the current world and the reason men are the lions share of key historical figures is because those men marginalised women who could otherwise have also been influential. It's like saying black people should be grateful that white men voted to abolish slavery on their behalf while overlooking the fact that the reason no black senators fought against slavery was that they were too busy picking cotton.
On December 19 2013 07:05 KwarK wrote: xDaunt that Paglia quote would be frankly insulting if it wasn't so incredibly stupid. "Lesbians need strong manly men in their private lives to define themselves by resisting". "Women turn men into boys by denigrating masculinity only to find that they're hopelessly empty without the men in their lives". "Men cannot honour their commitments because lecturers indoctrinated some students".
Who are these professors going "The thing that defines male oppression, the thing men absolutely must stop doing, the thing that makes a man a man, is honouring commitments. You must stop honouring commitments."? I mean seriously, who genuinely believes this stuff?
It's utter nonsense. I can't believe you, or indeed anyone, can read that with a straight face. Paglia is clearly a moron of the highest order.
I could care less about Paglia, and even less about what Kwark thinks of her. The funny thing here was your defense of a word; who can use it and who can't. It feeds into the nullity of most modern ideas where words and clichés begin to substitute for thought.
On March 20 2015 09:13 Shiragaku wrote: Let's be real, you only love her because you know her as someone who attacks other feminists, oh btw, did you know she is a "feminist?" It's like those black "anti-racists" who try to make themselves appear intellectual honest by pandering to the white conservative crowd and then attach anti-racist to themselves to appear like mavericks.
What happened to feminism as a heterogeneous field of cultural criticism? Where did the stingy sentiment of clannish defensiveness come from?
Ultimately, the trendies of this fad fall victim to the same malaise which sterilises all other -isms. They stop thinking half-way to squat on a label so they can flaunt their feathers, and in doing so the thinking world passes them by. What is sought is not understanding, but a sense of ideological belonging.
There is little that I find more amusing than the intellectual intolerance of the pseudo-intellectuals on the left. Hypocrisy at its finest.
On March 20 2015 09:13 Shiragaku wrote: Let's be real, you only love her because you know her as someone who attacks other feminists, oh btw, did you know she is a "feminist?" It's like those black "anti-racists" who try to make themselves appear intellectual honest by pandering to the white conservative crowd and then attach anti-racist to themselves to appear like mavericks.
What happened to feminism as a heterogeneous field of cultural criticism? Where did the stingy sentiment of clannish defensiveness come from?
Ultimately, the trendies of this fad fall victim to the same malaise which sterilises all other -isms. They stop thinking half-way to squat on a label so they can flaunt their feathers, and in doing so the thinking world passes them by. What is sought is not understanding, but a sense of ideological belonging.
Vladimir Zhironovsky and his Liberal Democratic Party can call itself liberal democrat all they want, but I am pretty damn sure that liberal democrats around the world, both left and right, would unite and call bullshit. The same can be said about Camille Paglia, but hey, even as a feminist and cultural critic, she is still full of shit which is what it comes down to. I think these two posts by Kwark sums her up rather well (In response to her TIME Article It's a Man's World)
On December 17 2013 10:07 KwarK wrote: What utter rot. Of course men do a lot, we make up half the world's population. I don't think many feminists are suggesting that men are dispensable. Claiming that women should give men credit for the world they've created is a very silly idea, it was created by men because women were systematically excluded from participation. Men didn't go out of their way to create a wonderful world so women didn't have to. People created the current world and the reason men are the lions share of key historical figures is because those men marginalised women who could otherwise have also been influential. It's like saying black people should be grateful that white men voted to abolish slavery on their behalf while overlooking the fact that the reason no black senators fought against slavery was that they were too busy picking cotton.
On December 19 2013 07:05 KwarK wrote: xDaunt that Paglia quote would be frankly insulting if it wasn't so incredibly stupid. "Lesbians need strong manly men in their private lives to define themselves by resisting". "Women turn men into boys by denigrating masculinity only to find that they're hopelessly empty without the men in their lives". "Men cannot honour their commitments because lecturers indoctrinated some students".
Who are these professors going "The thing that defines male oppression, the thing men absolutely must stop doing, the thing that makes a man a man, is honouring commitments. You must stop honouring commitments."? I mean seriously, who genuinely believes this stuff?
It's utter nonsense. I can't believe you, or indeed anyone, can read that with a straight face. Paglia is clearly a moron of the highest order.
I could care less about Paglia, and even less about what Kwark thinks of her. The funny thing here was your defense of a word; who can use it and who can't. It feeds into the nullity of most modern ideas where words and clichés begin to substitute for thought.
No one cares if she calls herself a feminist. She can do that. Kwark and others are more pointing out that the words coming out of her mouth are pretty dumb. I thought that was evident when he called it both "rot" and "stupid".
On March 20 2015 09:13 Shiragaku wrote: Let's be real, you only love her because you know her as someone who attacks other feminists, oh btw, did you know she is a "feminist?" It's like those black "anti-racists" who try to make themselves appear intellectual honest by pandering to the white conservative crowd and then attach anti-racist to themselves to appear like mavericks.
What happened to feminism as a heterogeneous field of cultural criticism? Where did the stingy sentiment of clannish defensiveness come from?
Ultimately, the trendies of this fad fall victim to the same malaise which sterilises all other -isms. They stop thinking half-way to squat on a label so they can flaunt their feathers, and in doing so the thinking world passes them by. What is sought is not understanding, but a sense of ideological belonging.
Vladimir Zhironovsky and his Liberal Democratic Party can call itself liberal democrat all they want, but I am pretty damn sure that liberal democrats around the world, both left and right, would unite and call bullshit. The same can be said about Camille Paglia, but hey, even as a feminist and cultural critic, she is still full of shit which is what it comes down to. I think these two posts by Kwark sums her up rather well (In response to her TIME Article It's a Man's World)
On December 17 2013 10:07 KwarK wrote: What utter rot. Of course men do a lot, we make up half the world's population. I don't think many feminists are suggesting that men are dispensable. Claiming that women should give men credit for the world they've created is a very silly idea, it was created by men because women were systematically excluded from participation. Men didn't go out of their way to create a wonderful world so women didn't have to. People created the current world and the reason men are the lions share of key historical figures is because those men marginalised women who could otherwise have also been influential. It's like saying black people should be grateful that white men voted to abolish slavery on their behalf while overlooking the fact that the reason no black senators fought against slavery was that they were too busy picking cotton.
On December 19 2013 07:05 KwarK wrote: xDaunt that Paglia quote would be frankly insulting if it wasn't so incredibly stupid. "Lesbians need strong manly men in their private lives to define themselves by resisting". "Women turn men into boys by denigrating masculinity only to find that they're hopelessly empty without the men in their lives". "Men cannot honour their commitments because lecturers indoctrinated some students".
Who are these professors going "The thing that defines male oppression, the thing men absolutely must stop doing, the thing that makes a man a man, is honouring commitments. You must stop honouring commitments."? I mean seriously, who genuinely believes this stuff?
It's utter nonsense. I can't believe you, or indeed anyone, can read that with a straight face. Paglia is clearly a moron of the highest order.
I could care less about Paglia, and even less about what Kwark thinks of her. The funny thing here was your defense of a word; who can use it and who can't. It feeds into the nullity of most modern ideas where words and clichés begin to substitute for thought.
I am more concerned about her intellectual dishonesty while playing the maverick card while saying unbelievably idiotic statements that simply make you wonder if she is for real. Even worse is that she is upheld for being such a figure by many people. She can call herself a feminist all she wants just like anyone can claim anything, but her credibility will be weakened. Feminists who are pro-pornography and anti-pornography are unbelievably different, but their credibility is still there.
And yes, I am defending the ideology in the abstract. I am not nullifying the word "democrat" if a Stalinist party calls itself democratic while saying stuff that is rather undemocratic and then proceeding to call them out on their dishonesty. To not do so would make the word meaningless as shown by ideologies of the past.
On March 20 2015 09:13 Shiragaku wrote: Let's be real, you only love her because you know her as someone who attacks other feminists, oh btw, did you know she is a "feminist?" It's like those black "anti-racists" who try to make themselves appear intellectual honest by pandering to the white conservative crowd and then attach anti-racist to themselves to appear like mavericks.
What happened to feminism as a heterogeneous field of cultural criticism? Where did the stingy sentiment of clannish defensiveness come from?
Ultimately, the trendies of this fad fall victim to the same malaise which sterilises all other -isms. They stop thinking half-way to squat on a label so they can flaunt their feathers, and in doing so the thinking world passes them by. What is sought is not understanding, but a sense of ideological belonging.
Vladimir Zhironovsky and his Liberal Democratic Party can call itself liberal democrat all they want, but I am pretty damn sure that liberal democrats around the world, both left and right, would unite and call bullshit. The same can be said about Camille Paglia, but hey, even as a feminist and cultural critic, she is still full of shit which is what it comes down to. I think these two posts by Kwark sums her up rather well (In response to her TIME Article It's a Man's World)
On December 17 2013 10:07 KwarK wrote: What utter rot. Of course men do a lot, we make up half the world's population. I don't think many feminists are suggesting that men are dispensable. Claiming that women should give men credit for the world they've created is a very silly idea, it was created by men because women were systematically excluded from participation. Men didn't go out of their way to create a wonderful world so women didn't have to. People created the current world and the reason men are the lions share of key historical figures is because those men marginalised women who could otherwise have also been influential. It's like saying black people should be grateful that white men voted to abolish slavery on their behalf while overlooking the fact that the reason no black senators fought against slavery was that they were too busy picking cotton.
On December 19 2013 07:05 KwarK wrote: xDaunt that Paglia quote would be frankly insulting if it wasn't so incredibly stupid. "Lesbians need strong manly men in their private lives to define themselves by resisting". "Women turn men into boys by denigrating masculinity only to find that they're hopelessly empty without the men in their lives". "Men cannot honour their commitments because lecturers indoctrinated some students".
Who are these professors going "The thing that defines male oppression, the thing men absolutely must stop doing, the thing that makes a man a man, is honouring commitments. You must stop honouring commitments."? I mean seriously, who genuinely believes this stuff?
It's utter nonsense. I can't believe you, or indeed anyone, can read that with a straight face. Paglia is clearly a moron of the highest order.
I could care less about Paglia, and even less about what Kwark thinks of her. The funny thing here was your defense of a word; who can use it and who can't. It feeds into the nullity of most modern ideas where words and clichés begin to substitute for thought.
No one cares if she calls herself a feminist. She can do that. Kwark and others are more pointing out that the words coming out of her mouth are pretty dumb. I thought that was evident when he called it both "rot" and "stupid".
Yes, but our friend Kwark is/was the ultimate incarnation of the feminist White Knight. Channeling his authority merely unfolds another level of humour in this. I wonder whether he was speaking ex cathedra.
It is merely a clever little ploy I have witnessed with the feminist authorities on this forum though. The defense against anti-feminists is always an obfuscation of what feminism supposedly is, whereas the defense against feminists is to fold up the drawbridge and define them out of it.
What is important is the integrity of the brand.
I am more concerned about her intellectual dishonesty while playing the maverick card while saying unbelievably idiotic statements that simply make you wonder if she is for real.
What is intellectually dishonest about her? I don't know her, but she seems rather sincere to me.
On March 20 2015 09:13 Shiragaku wrote: Let's be real, you only love her because you know her as someone who attacks other feminists, oh btw, did you know she is a "feminist?" It's like those black "anti-racists" who try to make themselves appear intellectual honest by pandering to the white conservative crowd and then attach anti-racist to themselves to appear like mavericks.
What happened to feminism as a heterogeneous field of cultural criticism? Where did the stingy sentiment of clannish defensiveness come from?
Ultimately, the trendies of this fad fall victim to the same malaise which sterilises all other -isms. They stop thinking half-way to squat on a label so they can flaunt their feathers, and in doing so the thinking world passes them by. What is sought is not understanding, but a sense of ideological belonging.
Vladimir Zhironovsky and his Liberal Democratic Party can call itself liberal democrat all they want, but I am pretty damn sure that liberal democrats around the world, both left and right, would unite and call bullshit. The same can be said about Camille Paglia, but hey, even as a feminist and cultural critic, she is still full of shit which is what it comes down to. I think these two posts by Kwark sums her up rather well (In response to her TIME Article It's a Man's World)
On December 17 2013 10:07 KwarK wrote: What utter rot. Of course men do a lot, we make up half the world's population. I don't think many feminists are suggesting that men are dispensable. Claiming that women should give men credit for the world they've created is a very silly idea, it was created by men because women were systematically excluded from participation. Men didn't go out of their way to create a wonderful world so women didn't have to. People created the current world and the reason men are the lions share of key historical figures is because those men marginalised women who could otherwise have also been influential. It's like saying black people should be grateful that white men voted to abolish slavery on their behalf while overlooking the fact that the reason no black senators fought against slavery was that they were too busy picking cotton.
On December 19 2013 07:05 KwarK wrote: xDaunt that Paglia quote would be frankly insulting if it wasn't so incredibly stupid. "Lesbians need strong manly men in their private lives to define themselves by resisting". "Women turn men into boys by denigrating masculinity only to find that they're hopelessly empty without the men in their lives". "Men cannot honour their commitments because lecturers indoctrinated some students".
Who are these professors going "The thing that defines male oppression, the thing men absolutely must stop doing, the thing that makes a man a man, is honouring commitments. You must stop honouring commitments."? I mean seriously, who genuinely believes this stuff?
It's utter nonsense. I can't believe you, or indeed anyone, can read that with a straight face. Paglia is clearly a moron of the highest order.
I could care less about Paglia, and even less about what Kwark thinks of her. The funny thing here was your defense of a word; who can use it and who can't. It feeds into the nullity of most modern ideas where words and clichés begin to substitute for thought.
No one cares if she calls herself a feminist. She can do that. Kwark and others are more pointing out that the words coming out of her mouth are pretty dumb. I thought that was evident when he called it both "rot" and "stupid".
Yes, but our friend Kwark is/was the ultimate incarnation of the feminist White Knight. Channeling his authority merely unfolds another level of humour in this. I wonder whether he was speaking ex cathedra.
It is merely a clever little ploy I have witnessed with the feminist authorities on this forum though. The defense against anti-feminists is always an obfuscation of what feminism supposedly is, whereas the defense against feminists is to fold up the drawbridge and define them out of it.
I am more concerned about her intellectual dishonesty while playing the maverick card while saying unbelievably idiotic statements that simply make you wonder if she is for real.
What is intellectually dishonest about her? I don't know her, but she seems rather sincere to me.
If she is sincere, then that is rather unfortunate. In regards to her criticisms of French philosophy, I can respect her. However, to state that feminism is trying to somehow denigrate masculinity by making them boys, demonizing men, and that men's invention of capitalism liberated women, men are dispensable, and that women are not giving men credit for hard work. Such statements are very similar to feminist strawmens that are built up to be argued and debunked on internet forums.
On March 20 2015 09:13 Shiragaku wrote: Let's be real, you only love her because you know her as someone who attacks other feminists, oh btw, did you know she is a "feminist?" It's like those black "anti-racists" who try to make themselves appear intellectual honest by pandering to the white conservative crowd and then attach anti-racist to themselves to appear like mavericks.
What happened to feminism as a heterogeneous field of cultural criticism? Where did the stingy sentiment of clannish defensiveness come from?
Ultimately, the trendies of this fad fall victim to the same malaise which sterilises all other -isms. They stop thinking half-way to squat on a label so they can flaunt their feathers, and in doing so the thinking world passes them by. What is sought is not understanding, but a sense of ideological belonging.
Vladimir Zhironovsky and his Liberal Democratic Party can call itself liberal democrat all they want, but I am pretty damn sure that liberal democrats around the world, both left and right, would unite and call bullshit. The same can be said about Camille Paglia, but hey, even as a feminist and cultural critic, she is still full of shit which is what it comes down to. I think these two posts by Kwark sums her up rather well (In response to her TIME Article It's a Man's World)
On December 17 2013 10:07 KwarK wrote: What utter rot. Of course men do a lot, we make up half the world's population. I don't think many feminists are suggesting that men are dispensable. Claiming that women should give men credit for the world they've created is a very silly idea, it was created by men because women were systematically excluded from participation. Men didn't go out of their way to create a wonderful world so women didn't have to. People created the current world and the reason men are the lions share of key historical figures is because those men marginalised women who could otherwise have also been influential. It's like saying black people should be grateful that white men voted to abolish slavery on their behalf while overlooking the fact that the reason no black senators fought against slavery was that they were too busy picking cotton.
On December 19 2013 07:05 KwarK wrote: xDaunt that Paglia quote would be frankly insulting if it wasn't so incredibly stupid. "Lesbians need strong manly men in their private lives to define themselves by resisting". "Women turn men into boys by denigrating masculinity only to find that they're hopelessly empty without the men in their lives". "Men cannot honour their commitments because lecturers indoctrinated some students".
Who are these professors going "The thing that defines male oppression, the thing men absolutely must stop doing, the thing that makes a man a man, is honouring commitments. You must stop honouring commitments."? I mean seriously, who genuinely believes this stuff?
It's utter nonsense. I can't believe you, or indeed anyone, can read that with a straight face. Paglia is clearly a moron of the highest order.
I could care less about Paglia, and even less about what Kwark thinks of her. The funny thing here was your defense of a word; who can use it and who can't. It feeds into the nullity of most modern ideas where words and clichés begin to substitute for thought.
No one cares if she calls herself a feminist. She can do that. Kwark and others are more pointing out that the words coming out of her mouth are pretty dumb. I thought that was evident when he called it both "rot" and "stupid".
Yes, but our friend Kwark is/was the ultimate incarnation of the feminist White Knight. Channeling his authority merely unfolds another level of humour in this. I wonder whether he was speaking ex cathedra.
It is merely a clever little ploy I have witnessed with the feminist authorities on this forum though. The defense against anti-feminists is always an obfuscation of what feminism supposedly is, whereas the defense against feminists is to fold up the drawbridge and define them out of it.
What is important is the integrity of the brand.
I am more concerned about her intellectual dishonesty while playing the maverick card while saying unbelievably idiotic statements that simply make you wonder if she is for real.
What is intellectually dishonest about her? I don't know her, but she seems rather sincere to me.
If she is sincere, then that is rather unfortunate. In regards to her criticisms of French philosophy, I can respect her. However, to state that feminism is trying to somehow denigrate masculinity by making them boys, demonizing men, and that men's invention of capitalism liberated women, men are dispensable, and that women are not giving men credit for hard work. Such statements are very similar to feminist strawmens that are built up to be argued and debunked on internet forums.
You probably should take a better crack at comprehending her feminist perspective and why she is opposed to the Steinem-type feminists.
EPT
