Might be a little confused...lots to type here. EDIT: Wow, lots of emberassing typos there, hope I ironed all the bugs out(don't you hate when you get those pesky chiggers stuck inbetween your words?).
LiquidBlue wrote:Do you just have a general dislike for feminist theory?
Yes, yes I do. Feminist, schauvinist- all crap. Stop trying to push one gender/race forward is what I say.
Especially on the backs of others- that only brings more resentment and later troubles.
If you haven't read Hardman's essay and know virtually know nothing about her, how can you call her (or me, for that matter) a man-hater? She is married to a MAN...has friends and students that are men...how do you know she has "anger issues"...She happens to teach at a college about 3 hours from where I live and I know quite a few people that were her students. They seem to find her to be a nice person, not a rampaging anger management issue.
Maybe she saves it all for the written word?
I can't tell you about her beside what I see with her "there's no place for hierarchy and gender in our language", assuming I got that conclusion right.
Gender inequality is well doccumented, you can't deny that...what is wrong with her applying her field of study to a topic that touches her as a person?
I fear she's trying to bullshit her way into some radical conclusion.
Somewhat like that angry reviewer(female BTW) who accused Tolkien's LoTR of fear of women or somesuch because to her Sheelob's description reminded a hidious vagina. No joke.
Hyp?
What good is knowledge if we don't apply it to the world around us?
What good is it when applied in order to find pre-determined concluions?
Chig hints at it, frankly I'm afraid I'll probably get lost in the jargon if I try and read it. I know I'm not up to the task of completely analysing her article.
Why does it matter? Does it make my argument less vaild because I am a woman, does it make yours less vaild because you are a man?
Yea! You's womens should be tanks for baby making and spice and gholas!
No, but I find the added information better than substructing it.
It also makes relationships more intimate if one recognizes one in some way and not just calls one "one" like in this humble one's example here.
You also have to deal with the idea that gender is fluid (not fixed) and culturally determined. What is "masculine" in one country might be "feminine" in another country or even cultural context. If thats the case (and it is) then gender isn't 100% biologically determined.
Sure everything is relative, but every culture has its defenitions of what those values are. Making them neutral and trying to make them disappear won't do so.
And I do believe, correct me if I'm wrong, that there's at least a strong general tendency to agree on major gender issues among most societies, which is probably biological in nature.
They do believe that, say, a woman births and a man can piss standing up all round the world, right(lovely examples, eh?)?
Men and women are different physically and mentally(well, a deriviative of their physical difference since the brain is a physical object after all).
This includes alot of hormonal differences and different thought patterns.
I hardly believe growing up and learning that God hates gays and that a woman and kids is what every man should want would make me "bi" if cultural influences were so dominant as you suggest.
Biology's at work here, and it ain't giving a damn about culture in terms of what one likes or not, only in how much and in what way one might express it outwardly(oh, you could argue about fetishes, or specific ones, but that might also be partly biological and it's more like accentricities anyway than "gender" defenitions).
From my paper:
As a child learns singular and plural, she also learns that singular is the best,
Huh? Singular in context as "the smartest one in class" or just "singular" and opposed to "plural"? So one dollar in the hand is better than 2?
which is connected with the postulate concerning ranking. Ranking places the English speaker in a position to acknowledge community only as a field of competition.
Talk about politically correct BS. Evolution has in its view only the betterment of oneself or at least the close sphere around oneself that supports said individual and offsprings(i.e spouse, relatives, friends, co-workers...and in extension countrymen[and women!
reminds me of
The Life of Brian forum scene] and then spicies etc etc ever outward, but the main thing is what's close to you).
Only one person can be the winner. Only one person can be the best.
Well, nowdays in order to not affront the kids they
all win, don't they?
That's why P&B's books are best-sellers, so they wouldn't be ashamed they aren't. Or something.
Even when groups of humans are the subject of speech, one is the desired outcome. This is illustrated by the “melting pot” metaphor applied to the United States. Though many cultures are represented in the United States, there is an attempt to represent only a singular U.S. culture.
And here I thought the whoe purpose of a "melting pot" it to melt, mix and come up with a new,
singular alloy. Silly silly me, should've researched metalorgy better.
And wait, are you for or against melting pots? By eradicating destinctions you surely are
for, but in this example you seem to be criticizing it.
Do you agree that most concious thought occurs though the use of a language?
Yes.
If you don't have the proper language to articulate a thought, how can you think it?
Well, then I can't, I agree(and
1984 was given as an example to this very thing BTW).
If you don't have a language that allows men and women to be the same thing, how do you think it?
They're all the same?!
I never knew chicks had dicks! I'd have run to them way sooner if I did!
No, uh, I mean the other way round...or something.
You should've realized by now that men and women ARE different in many ways, yet the same in many other.
Are you riled up about FH too because God Leto claims there are differences?
If you don't have language that allows Black and White people to be the same thing, then how can you stop dividing humanity?
So now you want me to be color blind too?
When a policeman describes a suspect, is he supposed to not mention the skin color cuz it might offend someone?
Are you not blond because it might offend redheads?
I suppose my idea of equality is that people should be judged as individuals in a non-arbituary fashion (Black/white is an arbituary distinction dependent on the judger, same as hot and cold, orange and red, soft and hard, and even masculine and femenine...)
Qualifications only, like I said earlier. We agree.
Enough with the
its flippant, and if thats how you really feel, then I won't take my time to debate with you...
Aww, c'mon, it ain't that bad. If you can stand those abnoxious kids you teach surely yer up to a nice guy like me.
Now...I think maybe you got the wrong impression of me(in no small way thanks to this here board's lovable members
).
I'm not a schauvinist, racist(well, I hate anyone named Anderson now, but that's a different matter), woman-hater etc.
All I'm saying is that feminism seems to be(and act) more about attacking the previous opressors and building up a new system with some new jerks on top.