Intellectual discourses on women: Type these in Steve Moxon interview - Part 1 of 5. + The Myth of Male Power - Warren Farrell - 1/19 +Podcast (The Hour of Judgment - 27/08/1995) - The Nature of Woman - Suzanne Hindmarsh + Domestic Violence - The Duluth Model - 1/2 + What Men Know that Women Don't - "The World of Woman" - Rich Zubaty & Sue Hindmarsh + Dr. Daniel Amen on The View + read: Esther Vilar + louann brizendine + brain sex by Anne moir
Shouldn't the title be: "I clipped 1 random fucking minute of an interview which is available on Youtube in it's entirety and I didn't understand a fucking word 'cause I thought of giving this clip the title: "Chomsky criticizes postmodern feminism & marxism". " Nothing to see here people, move along.
Early feminism was good, it led to equal right to women and its good thing, both men and women have unique and different qualities. Todays feminsim is fasizm toward men and teaching should be recognized as criminal against men, what it really is today.
MKEN CREATED BUILT INVENTED EVERYTHING. BUY MEN MEN DIE YOUNGER AND COMMIT SUICIDE AT 4 TIMES THE RATE OF WOMEN WORLDWIDE, THEY GET LESS HEALTH CARE , LESS SUPPORT GROUPS, LESS SUPPORT IN DIVORCES, LOSE 90% OF CUSTODY BATTLES OVER CHILDREN AND LOSE THEIR HOMES IN OVER 60% THEY WORK LONG HARDER DIE YOUNGER GET CUT OFF FROM THEIR FAMILIES AND ARE TOLD HOW EVIL THEY ARE IN MAINSTREAM BY SEXIST RADICAL FEMINISTS
Hmmm...this is about linguistics as a field in its early post-structuralist aspirations to be methodologically scientific at the dawn of the Cognitive Revolution. Nothing here explicitly about feminism or marxism. So...I don't get the title. But whatever. Pseudo-scientific elitist. Sure.
Hmmm...this is about linguistics as a field in its early post-structuralist aspirations to be methodologically scientific at the dawn of the Cognitive Revolution. Nothing here explicitly about feminism or marxism. So...I don't get the title. But whatever. Pseudo-scientific elitist. Sure.
Hmmm...this is about linguistics as a field in its early post-structuralist aspirations to be methodologically scientific at the dawn of the Cognitive Revolution. Nothing here explicitly about feminism or marxism. So...I don't get the title. But whatever. Pseudo-scientific elitist. Sure.
chomsky, like albert, is a reasonably competent academic, but it's really embarrassing that they're venerated in the way they are. it's okay that they don't - and probably never will - understand post-structuralist theory, but their weak gimmicky mixture of anarcho-syndicalism and human resources management strategy shouldn't get the attention it does. michel foucault should have finished him off when he got the chance.
you're an idiot if you think "women" are the problem or "men" are the problem. why don't you stop and think for two seconds and realize the entire notion of gender is a ludicrous social construct which creates these narrow norms of masculinity and femininity that no one actually fits into.
@ALLCAPSARCHER09 No one? There is no single person who would abide by these norms?
The asinine comment aside, let's take this one step at a time. Which gender wears skirts more than the other? Right, the female gender. Is it an appreciable difference? I would expect it to be very much so. So, already we have proved the existence of a norm, that 90% of the population abides by.
@STorpedo In your excitement, you missed the point of my comment. Sure, some norms are followed, but no one can abide by EVERY norm that culture pushes on us. To use a rather blunt example, no woman can be expected to look like the women portrayed in fashion magazines, because they are photoshopped and are actually proportionally impossible.
@ALLCAPSARCHER09 This was your point? Where is it? I want a citation from your 1st comment that states this point.
Anyways, the photoshopping occurs not (usually) in order to create an impossible figure, but to augment the existing proportions. I am pretty sure that there's at least a few women who (at the very least) closely resemble the models on fashion magazine covers, one group being, the models themselves.
@ALLCAPSARCHER09 I don't agree that no one can abide by every norm; there's a finite amount of them, after all, and I do not know of any that are mutually exclusive. Generally speaking, however, yes, most people don't fit into these norms wholly. So we agree, if that is your opinion.
@redshark618 thats true religion is the biggest obsticle in womens liberation! but its not just muslims hard right republcan christians want nothing less than to turn womens progress back 200 years. were all athiests about every god ever invented some just go one god further
@Redfingers thats exactly what theoreticle physicists do. He wasnt discounting there fields as much as saying there not the only people capable of speaking hypotheticly about things not yet happining
No, theoretical physicists do not use jargon for the sake of jargon. Theoretical physicists use the terms that they do and use such complicated, mindboggling models for how the universe operates because that is what the evidence indicates. Theoretical models in physics like quantum mechanics and relativity can predict experimental results accurately to multiple decimal points of precision. It is not a matter of sophistry, it is a matter of fact.
@RealRonPaul your not only a racist anti semit schmuck your also dumb ron paul would destroy our country any social safty net no public education all for profit for profiit courts for profit milatary privatize and sell off our whole country to the highest bidder while anyone makeing under a few hundred thousand a year is screwed wake up you racist clown
Ron Paul is the only man who is going to end the JEW FED! He is the only man who is going to end the PC indoctrination in our public education system that has made our white youth unhealthy. He is the only man who opposes amnesty and will throw the mestizo colonizers out. He is the only man that will restore states' rights so the scourge of black crime can finally be dealt with. And all in the name of Jesus and freedom. If that ain't WHITE POWER, I don't know what is.
Here's some top quality intellectual discourses concerning the sexes. type these in:::Steve Moxon interview - Part 1 of 5. + The Myth of Male Power - Warren Farrell - 1/19 + Domestic Violence - The Duluth Model - 1/2 + What Men Know that Women Don't - "The World of Woman" - Rich Zubaty & Sue Hindmarsh + Dr. Daniel Amen on The View + read Esther Vilar + the female brain louann brizendine + brain sex by Anne moir
By the way, I didn't hear Chomsky criticize postmodernism, feminism, or Marxism in this entire video, nor did he touch on your point about "pseudoscience." He was addressing elitism and seemed to be jealously upset of elitist scientists creating artificially complicated buzzword strings to cut everyone else out of the discussion. But the video has been so aggressively edited that it's difficult to see where this train of thought is going or who he is even specifically talking about.
Chomsky is talking in vague generalizations and he is using artificial constructs.
Physicists don't do things that are "incomprehensible" so much as they produce a list of facts that can be applied generally and used to solve specific problems.
Have you ever seen a space rocket? A satellite? An internal combustion engine? That's physics, assholes. There's a difference between sophistry and a tangible product, that's part of why science is a prestigious discipline with credibility.
@redshark618 Yearh, there are places in this world were people dont walk talk or act like we do? whattaya know, they may not even have a McDonalds or be obese. Damnit, get over your ethnocentrism and accept that we're not all alike.
@Gufberg I'm not ethnocentric, but the subjugation of women is still no less repulsive. If you were a woman you'd understand. If you are a woman, shame on you.
this is actually Chomsky criticizing neoclassical mainstream free market economics of the milton friedman brand...full of mathematical jargon and zero grounding in reality.
I'm gonna show this to the twats who study critical theory on my campus. They'll not want to write off Chomsky, so they'll have to just say something like "oh, well.... oh, I guess even Chomsky gets indoctrinated into this elitist analytic philosophy culture."
@mistermoen Critical theorists and derrida have few things to converge on. Jurgen Habermas was one of the leading critics of derrida , even though ,later, they became friends.
I suspect that if you were to show the video to students of critical theory you would receive a response "Um....isn't this video about pomo marxism and feminism . I'm studying critical theory. They bear little reseamblance".
This is precisely why social science is not a real science. Physics uses large words to balance large mathematical equations, the human is complicated like the Universe. It will be simulated only by the nature by numbers equations we have for the mind. Watching action and logically trying to pinpoint why the action took place is pointless rhetoric. The mind will not be discovered by Chomsky and his big social words which his drones repeat for him. The mind is a machine that requires real science
@Reido2828 "Watching action and logically trying to pinpoint why the action took place is pointless rhetoric"
This is the main reason we are as intelligent as we are now.. we learn from mistakes, we learn from patterns. If we don't try to pinpoint why an action takes place, the action will continue to take place whether positive or negative. Do you not even turn your head towards sociology or psychology?
P.s. If I'm not mistaken that's a misuse of the term rhetoric.
If people thought for them selves and took a more scientific approach to life, we wouldn't need leaches like Chomsky giving us complicated theories. These social theories have not been tried in a objective environment and They make unsubstantiated claims about consciousness, life, work, wage without a shred of evidence. this is why Biology, Physics, Astronomy, Computer Science and to an extent Cognitive science are far past the philosophy chains now.
Most of the sociologists/Philosophers of the past were actual scientists. The term science came into being I think in the 18th century. IE If Aristotle were alive today he would be a Physicist, biologist and playwright. Plato would be an artist, theologian etc. These are not results of sociology but of scientists studying the natural world. Chomsky is nothing more then a smooth talker or man who puts words together to make his ideas sound big.
@movcrit While behavioral psychology CAN and DOES use scientific principles in its research, sociology cannot, simply because it cannot create a control society to experiment on.
The limitations of the classical era allowed these men to spread their interests a great deal more than most modern scientists; for instance, someone studying the intricacies of the soybean genome, etc... Certainly, they may have other, broader interests, but they aren't going to have time to write books on philosophy. It's simply not a legitimate comparison.
No i don't I was referring to the text book definition and what Chomsky is trying to do is persuade people to re think actual academic science and come on board with his social theories which have 0 evidence or data on the claims. Why hasn't any scientist come forward yet with data in support of Chomsky? That's because he is distorting the idea of Social Science and trying re organize it hence RHETORIC. "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" Carl Sagan
@Reido2828 The textbook definition is from the school of rhetoric aka the art of persuasion which comes from the school of Sopholism. I don't believe his position is for Rhetoric but rather against logical positivism/empirical-ism (which doesn't need to result into rhetorical discussions because you can still have metaphysical statements) which stops humanities from being taken seriously.
That's exactly what hes trying to do. Any social theorist that compares himself to the likes of a Quantum Physicist is more delusional then those that pray regularly. How can anyone try and persuade others to believe in his social theories? He has no evidence backing up his claims other then his own language. This isn't science, its just rhetoric on the political side. Its sad how many drones go and defend him to without weighing the evidence
@Reido2828 Dude, my point is not-science doesn't not automatically lead to rhetoric. I am not defending his position but your supposed assertion that his position is rhetorical. It may not be true or valid but it doesn't not mean that it's purpose is purely rhetorical. He is simply stating his opinions and not making an effort to appeal anyone either by logos, ethos, or pathos. His purpose is to state, not to persuade .'. its not rhetorical.
@Reido2828 Which is why I questioned your use of the word rhetoric in the first place. An argument or position isn't rhetoric simply because it has no evidence (that would be less logos and actually less rhetoric). A discussion without science can also be dialectical while seemly with little evidence.
Tom Martin is suing Europe's largest gender studies department, for sex discrimination in relation to its curriculum's misleading propaganda, typically framing men as bad/guilty, and women as good/innocent. The court hearing date is on March 13th.
Read all the press etc at the sexismbusters website, and watch the YT vid here.
@BEANPOLE111 The critique is implied. He is saying that "critical theory" in the humanities (which is the basis for post-modernism and marxism in academia) is an attempt to legitimize their respective studies into sciences
@BEANPOLE111 What he was talking about was the postmodernist movement mainly centered around Paris, as he was talking about the common postmodernist reaction to criticisms at the end of the video.
One trick is to take words and attach unconventional meanings to them. That's supposed to set you apart from the confused masses, who just aren't at your level intellectually.
And Not actually engage in a worldview just dissect it from a far and then say you have no interest in the philosophic approach to criticism. I would love to get you to state a fallacious theory and not just something you disagree with. An objective lens is nothing more than a normative approach. I dare say ii thinks he knows what is deemed education. Sounding a bit high and whitey to me. A bit of hubris towards no doubt his own chosen field of self determination. I wish you well.
@iiwatcher I would love to engage in this most stimulating though often stifled discussion but.. I don't know where to begin, perhaps if you could not use 'theory' and 'ideology' interchangeably when one seeks popularity and thinks practically and the theorist seeks accuracy and thinks abstractly. Again you connect them and sort of banally go on to dismiss philosophy. Yes let's be the empiricist who denounces logic as bullshit. I get the nervous feeling you are trying to stick it to marxists..
The VAST majority of people could never grasp the hard sciences and mathematics, even if they spent their lives trying. I have never doubted that these attempts to force a scientific framework (actually it's really just language) on hunches and feelings are rooted in envy.
@aIyshooting Pretty sweeping statement, if not also elitist. I would understand if most people couldn't MASTER the sciences like a professional can, but to say they couldn't grasp the material is a mistaken idea. If you study a subject well, you can grasp it. This is true for anyone of basic intelligence. As for the rest of your comment, I think it's envy, ambition, & status, as well as socio-political leeway to influence outcomes. For example, as with feminists.
@ilwatcher "After looking into it, I think philosophy is mostly bullshit" hahaha, good one buddy...
I'm not going to let you waste my time anymore, I only recommend you read more and try to keep an open mind. The Sokal/Bricmont affair is worth reading up on, particularly Derrida's response, "On Metaphor".
@ilwatcher I think that what you're spewing is "ideological bilge" and I have just as much evidence as you do to back it up. You're just kind of ranting, making silly arguments. Maybe some Theory has gotten a little excessive, but you haven't shown me any convincing evidence at all that it should *all* be thrown out.
My original comment of babies in the bathwater still stands.
You're being a but hypocritical in accusing me of logical fallacies when in turn you make baseless statements without backing them up. "your ranting, making silly arguments" is not a valid counter of any kind. Let your opinion stand then, I will continue to disagree, bc you haven't proved me wrong. (cont...)
@petersoup cont...Show me how feminist "theory" is a theory at all in the genuine academic sense and I'll hear you out. & please, no philosophical rants, or ideological indoctrination, or "theory" preaching--NOT INTERESTED--just prove how it is legit theory. I contend that if you throw out the ideological bilge passing as academic study & keep real academic subjects, no "babies" will die, I assure you.
@ilwatcher 1) I started this thread, I set the topic, you commented. 2) I'm not off topic, merely asking a simple question and 3) ad hominems aren't really going to make your case.
@petersoup 1. You may move the goalpost all you want. that is your choice. My choice is not to follow. I was, and am speaking about what is being taught in schools and how it is taught. That is the topic, as far as I'm concerned. 2. I gave you the answer. You're welcome to dislike it. (cont...)
@petersoup 3. I don't know what you're referring to. After looking into it, I think philosophy is mostly bullshit. That's my opinion. That feminism (feminist studies in college) is not theory, but ideology is a fact. It's pure bullshit. You may disagree, but you won't be able to refute that fact. You'll probably at best try to drag me into some convoluted philosophical argument, at best.
It means "reality" has we know it, has been transformed by the mass media into something what Baudrillard called hyper reality - an implosion of the real and the virtual. Take sport for instance - at one time you might say that radio and early TV was eavesdropping on the 'real' event - but now the event has become controlled by television - meaning the 'hyper real' event takes presidence over the actual 'real' event. And what goes for soccer goes for politics, culture, art, economics etc etc
@ilwatcher "Women's studies, feminist studies, gender studies, queer theory, and any other classes disguised as "theory" that are nothing but post-modern, third wave feminist or otherwise socio-political bullshit, and useless ideological indoctrination" For someone who claims to favor hard evidence, this seems to me to be a fairly baseless ideological dismissal. ALL feminist theory, etc is BS? Evidence for this?
@petersoup No hard evidence claimed or needed. You can't scientifically study ideological bilge. In the first place, feminism is not a theory of any kind, nor is there any such thing as feminist theory. It is an ideology, nothing more. Fighting for equal rights under just laws requires nothing more than common sense and basic logic. No need for feminism for that. Feminist discourse is pseudo-academic garbage.
"Philosophy and all that bullshit is OK, as long as you keep out the political posturing & indoctrination & keep the study & teaching of it purely academic" So philosophy's ok as long as it doesn't try to change or affect the world in any way?
@petersoup *Sigh* Stay on topic, I know it must be difficult for you. I'm talking about the STUDY of it in education. Philosophy, nor any other study should be about indoctrinating anyone to any particular point of view, political or otherwise. True education is presenting the evidence for something, and allowing the individual to come to their own conclusion based on the available info. I don't bother much w/ philosophy myself. Too much bullshit. You may enjoy it if you like.
Chomsky criticizes the post modern thinkers for being pretentious - but if you get by the psycho babble some of their ideas are cogent and original. I think Baudrillard's work on the mass media goes further and deeper than Chomsky's - as he sees past the media's content i,e. propaganda - and concentrates instead on its form and malign influence on reality. To Baudrillard the medium is the message so to speak - not the content.
@32peartree "he sees past the media's content i,e. propaganda - and concentrates instead on its form and malign influence on reality. To Baudrillard the medium is the message so to speak - not the content." What? What does that mean?
@iiwatcher It simply means that the modern mass media's form - viz-a-viz 24 Hour rolling News, live satellite link ups, interactivity - have a much more of a profound effect on human consciousness than the propaganda it actually spews out. Propaganda models are nothing new - the church, radio, news reels - but they did not create the political and cultural stasis we see today - where despite massive riots, marches, civil disobedience - nothing ever seems to change.
@iiwatcher 2) take the riots in Greece - in previous years - before the stranglehold of the mass media - we would have seen either a collapse of the government or a military takeover - yet the government hangs on forever in the face of massive pressure. Baudrillard posited in the media age all revolutions implode - or rather become simulacra revolutions processed by the mass media. The left really need to take Baudrillard's ideas seriously- and stop trying to use the medium and instead attack it
@fuckingsickadventure Because biological differences include hormonal differences, and these influence to a large extent our preferences, emotions, and behaviours.
Men and women very often think and process things differently. Everything of course, is on average, but men tend to be more technical and women tend to be more communicative. This is why women vastly outnumber men in the arts and social sciences, and men vastly outnumber women in the maths and sciences.
@fuckingsickadventure College and Uni professors love to blur the gender line and pass it off as a complete societal thing, but anyone who's spent time in the real world knows that men and women are fundamentally different on more than a physical level.
@panathinakosbear 1 Men and women are fundamentally different because they are treated as such. Gender is mainly a social construct, just as race. We are exposed to gender messages that overwhelmingly reinforce that hyper-masculinity is inherent to men, hyper-femininity is inherent to women, and together, they construct and establish two opposing realms in which we are socially pressured to fit.
A prime example of BULLSHIT ideological construct presented as as theory. There is overwhelming scientific evidence that there are powerful biological substrates to gender, gender preference, and behavior. Of course, as with anything in nature, there are exceptions, but they are just that. They prove the rule, not deny it. And NO, I won't do your HW for you on youtube. Go do it yourself. It's probably wasted on a disingenuous ideologue such as yourself anyway.
@panathinakosbear 2 If you are male and show any sort of femininity you are a wimp, wuss, girl, faggot etc. If you are a female and show any sort of masculinity you are a tomboy, dyke, lesbian, etc.
@fuckingsickadventure Oh yeah? I haven't seen it. I see rampantly the villainization of masculinity in men, coming off as "barbaric" or "simple minded", and the promotion of masculine traits in women as being "strong, independent, etc" however.
@panathinakosbear HAVEN'T SEEN IT?!(reinforcement of hyper masculinity to men & hyper femininity to women) Have you ever heard of Barbie? G.I. Joe? watched a Hollywood movie? Have you ever flicked through or even seen the cover of a 'glam' mag? Do you honestly think these things have not influenced how we identify or behave?
@panathinakosbear And yes the messages to men can be confusing and frustrating. As you said, men are portrayed as 'barbaric' or as animals in no control over sexual desire, personal gain, and no common sense. Guys are also portrayed as the ruler, the controller, the wise and the hero, so finding a place to fit is difficult.
@panathinakosbear And your comment pretty much reads as, "People who have dedicated years of their life studying and examining, and understanding how gender effects our lives have no say over people who are just obviously more knowlegable because they are in 'the real world' "
@fuckingsickadventure My first professor at a small town college was a former soldier in the soviet union for ten years and had studied under Lenin's biographer. He was also involved with cultural warfare against the democratic west.
It is his belief that the majority of western professors are delusional and influenced by marxist propaganda, something he helped spread.
Having a title like "professor" doesn't mean anything. Many of them deserve to lose their jobs I believe
@fuckingsickadventure People who spend their lives honestly studying gender via evidence based approach know the truth about gender. People who spend their lives constructing pseudo "theories" about gender without regard to academic, scientific, or objectively honest approach have ZERO credible say in the matter. Case in point: your baseless, circular rhetoric.
@Andkon4Everything I found something. This series of video is very hard to find. It falls under the title: "Noam Chomsky - Science, Religion, & Human Nature." It's a series of videos. I found one part where he talks about the same subject as the video here. w w w . archive . org /details/NoamChomsky-ScienceReligionHumanNature-session2-2010
@Andkon4Everything PS: Yes, the link I posted is the longer part of this video on youtube. I'll keep looking for more. It seems there are about 5 parts. In the meantime, if you can find the whole series, or at least more videos of it please let's keep this thing going and reply back!
@petersoup Women's studies, feminist studies, gender studies, queer theory, and any other classes disguised as "theory" that are nothing but post-modern, third wave feminist or otherwise socio-political bullshit, and useless ideological indoctrination (e.g., Marxism, as it is "taught" by far leftist ideologues). Philosophy and all that bullshit is OK, as long as you keep out the political posturing & indoctrination & keep the study & teaching of it purely academic.
Um....Marx is the first guy who tried to give social science a methodical, testable scientific basis in Das Kapital. The predictions he made in these volumes have recently been proved with renewed vigour. If you equate contemporary marxism with the Frankfurt school, then it's a continuation of this aspect of Marx in particular. How is this video a criticism of marxism?...Post-modernism sure (except Foucault), but not marxism. What about marxist feminism btw, or liberal feminism?
@mcnesta80 Oh really? What predictions? On the large social scale, there are always far too many uncontrolled variables to allow for any genuine testing of scientific laws, and the "laws" of social science, if they are laws at all, are statistical, meaning that they are wrong much of the time. If economics were really scientific, economists would all be rich. The 20th century Marxist experiments all failed, apart from watered-down social democracy. Marx and God are both dead.
@gspaulsson If you think Leninism, Stalinism and Maoism were Marxist experiments, you haven't read much Marx. There's nothing Marxist about transitioning straight from feudalism to fascism. The main prediction of Marxist theory is that the laws and norms of a society will conform to the logic of capital, and that this logic will inevitably lead to credit bubbles which take out the whole economy when they burst, provoking revolutionary action (e.g. New Deal).
@mcnesta80 An example of the "no true Scotsman" fallacy. Marx predicted revolutionary outcomes because he didn't see how capitalism could get itself out of an inventory recession, but we have seen probably 50 recessions since Marx wrote. He adopted Ricardo's labour theory of value, which is fallacious - it is really a labour theory of cost, whereas value = utility. Profit ("surplus value") does not reduce aggregate demand as Marx thought - rich people invest and buy Ferraris..
@gspaulsson I can see this is about to come down to the classic argument between a western marxist and a utilitarian. If you really want my counter, read Honneth on the psycho-social basis of labour as value. Also, Keynesian business cycles weren't exactly predicted by Marx. 1890, 1929 and 2007 are the crashes that really validate his macroeconomics for me.
@mcnesta80 but none of those crashes was the predicted"final crisis of capitalism". Marxism is a 19th-century grand narrative, all of which tried to explain history as a struggle between ideas, classes, nations, races, etc., That kind of book (e.g. Jared Diamond) is fun to read, but basically nonsense. Capitalism has evolved in ways that Marx did not predict: the big pools of capital now are pension funds ($32 trillion) and sovereign funds - both weird forms of social ownership.
@gs 2007 might just prove to be the start of the final crisis, but also Marx predicted many crises and false revolutions before the real thing. You're absolutely right that Marx didn't predict the way Capitalism evolved in a complex sense, but Marxists like Lukacs and Marcuse did. If you want to argue against Marxism as a sociological research method, then you have to argue against the whole history of the Frankfurt school, not just Karl. That'd be like restricting a critique of pm to Nietzsche.
@gspaulsson Also, be fair. Jared Diamond is all over the shop. Marx has a strict materialistic basis. Ideas, nations and races as categories are all the product of what we do in our day to day struggle for the material means to survive and flourish. There's the major insight that Marx uses to put the science into social science. While Sartre and Heidegger were contemplating their navels, Frankfurt school was developing theory based on social research.
@IntellectualPopulist Yes, I wonder this too. This is totally taken out of context, and the topic seems interesting. A reference or a link to whole interview would be very appreciated.
it would have been nice to heat the rest of his comment, calling it "appealing" yields slight agreement..yet the rest of his statement would have peeved off a majority of his followers and illiterati in the academies who slap his name on the covers of their books to sell them because the have no mind of their own.
Oh and I also gotta love the leftist censorship here with the fraudulent spam-flaggings of my comments. Keep up your wonderful tactics. Sadly though, you won't be able to delete them :].
Hahaha this parade of idiots like Razvan et. all is getting more hilarious by the minute. Calling chomsky, someone who teaches at MIT , revolutionized linguistics, profoundly impact Cognitive psychology and is regarded as one of the smartest people in academia a Charlatan has to be one of the funniest psychological projections I've ever seen. Also, check out the uses of the word theoretical apparatus. And oh please, sloppy can be best attributed to shitty PoMo lines of irrational un-reasoning.
Am I the only one to think that Chomsky is a well meaning charlatan? His tirades against french academia are getting tiresome and, if anything, indicate the narrow scope of his theoretical apparatus. He's sloppy at best.
I agree, the humanities are mostly BS and filler. Good choice of major if you want to drink your way through college though. Basically the biggest things you learn is how to BS and how to force yourself to do homework while still drunk. That's a liberal arts education.
@weedipikia I wouldn't exactly say that. Sure, some papers may deal with mere truism and actually narrow your thinking, but there are plenty of papers that critically analyze society, the way things operate, etc. etc.
I am a business student and it strikes me as quite strange that in Business school, we hardly ever consider the business world critically or the impact it has on society.
@weedipikia If you are happy with a C average, that is. If you want an A from me, you'd better demonstrate good critical thinking skills, sound research and the ability to express your ideas lucidly. I'm an historian, and I don't know if any of my students have gone on to become historians, but the skills they acquired by doing history will serve equally in researching, analysing and writing up real-world problems, beyond the narrow technical ambit of science and engineering.
Not all the humanities are crap. History is an example. Unfortunately, we have less & less academic & empirical approaches & more & more bullshit theory & socio-political indoctrination going on in the classrooms. Sometimes it is the class that's bullshit, e.g., feminist studies, sometimes it is the teaching approach. The scientific approach (evidence based) as much as it is possible given the subject matter, is always the best.(cont...)
@fuckingsickadventure That's what they all say. Funny thing...religious people say the same thing to rationalize their beliefs. Another good ons the 'ol "not all feminists are like that" and the good 'ol "there are many kinds of feminism" and so on. It's an agenda driven , ideological, separatist self-interest movement, and that is all. If you're for equal rights FOR ALL under just laws, no feminism needed. Just be a human rights advocate/activist. Simple.
@iiwatcher 1 You may have sent this to the wrong person. Could you clarify what it is 'they all say'? Of course feminism, being a movement, has an agenda. And yes the agenda is the same as of human rights advocates, but injustice exists for complex reasons especially pertaining to race, class, and gender and so must be analyzed through different lenses. So feminism is a political perspective that uses gender to critically analyze power. Social injustices are viewed with a gender lens.
Sigh* Another retard. OK I'll spell it our for u: 1. "That's what they all say" is a very common expression. It means that certain ppl or groups spew the same rhetoric over & over again. The rhetoric I gave examples of are superfluously common to feminist apologetic. 2. "And yes the agenda is the same as of human rights advocates" Uh, NO it isn't. Human rights advocates do not exclude half of the equation. They fight for injustice for ALL equally, not just for "wymin."
Cont... 3. "injustice exists for complex reasons" No shit Sherlock. 4. "especially pertaining to race, class, and gender and so must be analyzed through different lenses." What? There begins your ideological rhetoric. One can analyze injustice with the same "lens" regardless of the issue. Injustice is injustice. It's obvious stuff. No need to fabricate elaborate psuedo-theories. (cont...)
cont...5. "So feminism is a political perspective that uses gender to critically analyze power." You said it, not me! Excpet you don't realize the truth of what you just said. EXCEPT, the analysis is hardly "critical." it is ideologically based, not evidence based. But you are right in stating that feminists USE GENDER for the purposes of that which pertains to POWER. (cont...)
@fuckingsickadventure 6. "Social injustices are viewed with a gender lens." Yes, by feminists, bc they use gender to propagate their separatist, self interest goals through pseudo-academic, deconstructionist nonsense--in order to establish a victim mentality of men via an "oppressive patriarchy" dogma that establishes men as oppressors and women as victims, as well as propagating anti-scientific BILGE about gender. (cont...)
This is a no brainier to anyone with a smidgeon of integrity: Spotting injustice is common sense & universal to all humans. No feminism, masculinity or any other "ism" is needed. (cont...)
@iiwatcher A]] Okay. so I now realize we are on the same side, although you believe feminism is a separatist, self-interest movement/group for women to gain power. In regards to 2. Feminism is a movement/tool that focuses on gender inequalities, this does not mean they exclude or don't care about inequality linked with race, class etc. 3. I stated 'injustice exists for complex reasons' to introduce the different 'lenses' concept. & Im not sure if you do realize the complexity. for you state,
@fuckingsickadventure I'll respond by your numerical order. 2. It's an unnecessary tool and a divisive one. Inequalities (which I take to mean forms of injustice, discrimination, oppression) among men & women can easily be addressed, and even better w/o feminism. 3. No need to reiterate. I understood your comment, & have heard the "lenses" argument before. it's standard feminist "theory" rhetoric.(cont...)
@fuckingsickadventure We don't need a feminist lens to know when a woman is being discriminated against or what to do about it. It's a human rights issue that in such a case, specifically refers to women. When a man is discriminated against we do not need a masculanism theory or movement to address it either. Repeat with children (toddlerism), the elderly (geriatrism), etc. Feminism IS what I stated. That's not a belief. It's a fact in the real world.
@iiwatcher B] "injustice is injustice" "it's obvious stuff" and thus we only need one 'lens', or one approach 4. How can you claim what I'm saying is "fabricated elaborate psuedo-theories" when you just stated you did not understand? Let me try again with the lens concept. You argue, "One can analyze injustice with the same 'lens' regardless of the issue". Injustice is broad. Therefore you say the lens to examine the injustice is with a broad lens. If we analyze/break down the injustice we find
@fuckingsickadventure I didn't state I do not understand, nor did I claim all issues can be addressed via one approach. Please refrain from such logical fallacies, or otherwise disingenuous tactics. It makes you seem dishonest. 4. you're just repeating yourself.
@iiwatcher C] that it is not as broad as it seemed and we will need narrower/more-specific lens. Now that we see these injustices are intertwined in race, class, and gender issues we can use a lens for each issue and more effectively examine and hopefully fix the broader problem. The key is working together and making connections/relations between what is found by means of feminism, class, and race studies. 5. Yes, I said it. and since you misunderstood the lens concept, you misread it. I don't
What feminists want in this "lens" concept of yours is to be able to construct elaborate ideologies around such issues, and pass them off as "theory." Injustice is injustice & needs no genius or complex ideology to figure it out. If you are deprived, let's say, of a job bc you're a woman, that's injustice. Or Black--that's injustice. No need to fabricate a "patriarchy theory" bullshit to wage some war against the almighty oppressive man to gain power. That's what fems do.
@iiwatcher D] know how you changed my words into "feminists use gender for purposes of that which pertains to power". Why cant an analysis of how gender affects our lives be evidence based? 6. you NEED to understand that feminist does not equal women. A feminist is one whom sees a wrong in the inequality of the sexes, limiting gender expectations(for men&women), and discrimination against anyone of LGTB. Considering feminists are men, women, trannys, gays, both-sex, dont identify, etc.
@fuckingsickadventure D--it's all about power for feminists. I'm not changing your words. I'm pointing out the reality behind them and stating my assertions. Feminists almost invariably use fabricated nonsense & try to pass it off as evidence based. Analysis regarding gender can be evidence based. There is a tool for that. It's called science. No agenda driven, ideological movement needed. (cont...)
@fuckingsickadventure 6. No, I don't NEED to understand any such thing. You're making rather pretentious assumptions. You state the obvious. I know what a feminist is & what feminism is. I know it isn't a sex. Plenty of men are feminist. Are we clear about what I understand now?
This has been flagged as spam show
Intellectual discourses on women: Type these in Steve Moxon interview - Part 1 of 5. + The Myth of Male Power - Warren Farrell - 1/19 +Podcast (The Hour of Judgment - 27/08/1995) - The Nature of Woman - Suzanne Hindmarsh + Domestic Violence - The Duluth Model - 1/2 + What Men Know that Women Don't - "The World of Woman" - Rich Zubaty & Sue Hindmarsh + Dr. Daniel Amen on The View + read: Esther Vilar + louann brizendine + brain sex by Anne moir
shamelessfootfucker 4 hours ago
Shouldn't the title be: "I clipped 1 random fucking minute of an interview which is available on Youtube in it's entirety and I didn't understand a fucking word 'cause I thought of giving this clip the title: "Chomsky criticizes postmodern feminism & marxism". " Nothing to see here people, move along.
hamnose 1 day ago
Early feminism was good, it led to equal right to women and its good thing, both men and women have unique and different qualities. Todays feminsim is fasizm toward men and teaching should be recognized as criminal against men, what it really is today.
zigifrojd 1 day ago
Bring me my coffee bitch!
Cwisiee 2 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Cwisiee I said replenish it, you whore! And give me two lumps!!
kuntyfucstik 16 hours ago
This has been flagged as spam show
MKEN CREATED BUILT INVENTED EVERYTHING. BUY MEN MEN DIE YOUNGER AND COMMIT SUICIDE AT 4 TIMES THE RATE OF WOMEN WORLDWIDE, THEY GET LESS HEALTH CARE , LESS SUPPORT GROUPS, LESS SUPPORT IN DIVORCES, LOSE 90% OF CUSTODY BATTLES OVER CHILDREN AND LOSE THEIR HOMES IN OVER 60% THEY WORK LONG HARDER DIE YOUNGER GET CUT OFF FROM THEIR FAMILIES AND ARE TOLD HOW EVIL THEY ARE IN MAINSTREAM BY SEXIST RADICAL FEMINISTS
deniro999 3 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Hmmm...this is about linguistics as a field in its early post-structuralist aspirations to be methodologically scientific at the dawn of the Cognitive Revolution. Nothing here explicitly about feminism or marxism. So...I don't get the title. But whatever. Pseudo-scientific elitist. Sure.
RayRayBiel 4 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Hmmm...this is about linguistics as a field in its early post-structuralist aspirations to be methodologically scientific at the dawn of the Cognitive Revolution. Nothing here explicitly about feminism or marxism. So...I don't get the title. But whatever. Pseudo-scientific elitist. Sure.
RayRayBiel 4 days ago
Hmmm...this is about linguistics as a field in its early post-structuralist aspirations to be methodologically scientific at the dawn of the Cognitive Revolution. Nothing here explicitly about feminism or marxism. So...I don't get the title. But whatever. Pseudo-scientific elitist. Sure.
RayRayBiel 4 days ago
misleading title!!!
MrCoreyCole 4 days ago
chomsky, like albert, is a reasonably competent academic, but it's really embarrassing that they're venerated in the way they are. it's okay that they don't - and probably never will - understand post-structuralist theory, but their weak gimmicky mixture of anarcho-syndicalism and human resources management strategy shouldn't get the attention it does. michel foucault should have finished him off when he got the chance.
alxwldct 4 days ago
@alxwldct
This is a huge admission to ignorance. I dont know EXACLTY what youre saying, but Im incredibly interested in learning what you mean.
88Keyz101 3 days ago
you're an idiot if you think "women" are the problem or "men" are the problem. why don't you stop and think for two seconds and realize the entire notion of gender is a ludicrous social construct which creates these narrow norms of masculinity and femininity that no one actually fits into.
ALLCAPSARCHER09 5 days ago
@ALLCAPSARCHER09 No one? There is no single person who would abide by these norms?
The asinine comment aside, let's take this one step at a time. Which gender wears skirts more than the other? Right, the female gender. Is it an appreciable difference? I would expect it to be very much so. So, already we have proved the existence of a norm, that 90% of the population abides by.
4 words: shall we go on?
STorpedo 5 days ago
@STorpedo In your excitement, you missed the point of my comment. Sure, some norms are followed, but no one can abide by EVERY norm that culture pushes on us. To use a rather blunt example, no woman can be expected to look like the women portrayed in fashion magazines, because they are photoshopped and are actually proportionally impossible.
ALLCAPSARCHER09 5 days ago
@ALLCAPSARCHER09 This was your point? Where is it? I want a citation from your 1st comment that states this point.
Anyways, the photoshopping occurs not (usually) in order to create an impossible figure, but to augment the existing proportions. I am pretty sure that there's at least a few women who (at the very least) closely resemble the models on fashion magazine covers, one group being, the models themselves.
STorpedo 3 days ago
@ALLCAPSARCHER09 I don't agree that no one can abide by every norm; there's a finite amount of them, after all, and I do not know of any that are mutually exclusive. Generally speaking, however, yes, most people don't fit into these norms wholly. So we agree, if that is your opinion.
STorpedo 3 days ago
@redshark618 thats true religion is the biggest obsticle in womens liberation! but its not just muslims hard right republcan christians want nothing less than to turn womens progress back 200 years. were all athiests about every god ever invented some just go one god further
LookForThetruth11 5 days ago
@Redfingers thats exactly what theoreticle physicists do. He wasnt discounting there fields as much as saying there not the only people capable of speaking hypotheticly about things not yet happining
LookForThetruth11 5 days ago
@LookForThetruth11
No, theoretical physicists do not use jargon for the sake of jargon. Theoretical physicists use the terms that they do and use such complicated, mindboggling models for how the universe operates because that is what the evidence indicates. Theoretical models in physics like quantum mechanics and relativity can predict experimental results accurately to multiple decimal points of precision. It is not a matter of sophistry, it is a matter of fact.
Redfingers 5 days ago
@RealRonPaul your not only a racist anti semit schmuck your also dumb ron paul would destroy our country any social safty net no public education all for profit for profiit courts for profit milatary privatize and sell off our whole country to the highest bidder while anyone makeing under a few hundred thousand a year is screwed wake up you racist clown
LookForThetruth11 5 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Ron Paul is the only man who is going to end the JEW FED! He is the only man who is going to end the PC indoctrination in our public education system that has made our white youth unhealthy. He is the only man who opposes amnesty and will throw the mestizo colonizers out. He is the only man that will restore states' rights so the scourge of black crime can finally be dealt with. And all in the name of Jesus and freedom. If that ain't WHITE POWER, I don't know what is.
RON PAUL 2012!!!
RealRonPaul 6 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Here's some top quality intellectual discourses concerning the sexes. type these in:::Steve Moxon interview - Part 1 of 5. + The Myth of Male Power - Warren Farrell - 1/19 + Domestic Violence - The Duluth Model - 1/2 + What Men Know that Women Don't - "The World of Woman" - Rich Zubaty & Sue Hindmarsh + Dr. Daniel Amen on The View + read Esther Vilar + the female brain louann brizendine + brain sex by Anne moir
shamelessfootfucker 6 days ago
By the way, I didn't hear Chomsky criticize postmodernism, feminism, or Marxism in this entire video, nor did he touch on your point about "pseudoscience." He was addressing elitism and seemed to be jealously upset of elitist scientists creating artificially complicated buzzword strings to cut everyone else out of the discussion. But the video has been so aggressively edited that it's difficult to see where this train of thought is going or who he is even specifically talking about.
Redfingers 6 days ago
Chomsky is talking in vague generalizations and he is using artificial constructs.
Physicists don't do things that are "incomprehensible" so much as they produce a list of facts that can be applied generally and used to solve specific problems.
Have you ever seen a space rocket? A satellite? An internal combustion engine? That's physics, assholes. There's a difference between sophistry and a tangible product, that's part of why science is a prestigious discipline with credibility.
Redfingers 6 days ago
@Redfingers Very good :-)
elrjames777 2 days ago
There seems to be a lot of feminism going on except where it matters most, those countries where women still wear veils.
redshark618 1 week ago 2
@redshark618 that's because anyone who criticizes 'God's law' in those countries is persecuted immediately
pcgamer010 1 week ago
@redshark618 Yearh, there are places in this world were people dont walk talk or act like we do? whattaya know, they may not even have a McDonalds or be obese. Damnit, get over your ethnocentrism and accept that we're not all alike.
Gufberg 1 week ago
@Gufberg I'm not ethnocentric, but the subjugation of women is still no less repulsive. If you were a woman you'd understand. If you are a woman, shame on you.
redshark618 6 days ago
you can't cut it off there, he was clearly just starting his point.
MrChristopherGuest 1 week ago
misleading title. this is about how the perception of the academy functions between sciences and arts. he hardly begins to mention feminism...
wonderboy8229 1 week ago
this is actually Chomsky criticizing neoclassical mainstream free market economics of the milton friedman brand...full of mathematical jargon and zero grounding in reality.
MetrazolElectricity 1 week ago
I'm gonna show this to the twats who study critical theory on my campus. They'll not want to write off Chomsky, so they'll have to just say something like "oh, well.... oh, I guess even Chomsky gets indoctrinated into this elitist analytic philosophy culture."
Lol. Screw off Derrida, etc.
mistermoen 1 week ago
@mistermoen Critical theorists and derrida have few things to converge on. Jurgen Habermas was one of the leading critics of derrida , even though ,later, they became friends.
I suspect that if you were to show the video to students of critical theory you would receive a response "Um....isn't this video about pomo marxism and feminism . I'm studying critical theory. They bear little reseamblance".
SonytoBratsoni 1 week ago
Pomo marxist feminism is one of the biggest heists in academic history. I can't believe people waste their parents' money studying it.
Mangina9000 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Some people want young white females to mix with non-white males.
I made a one-minute video highlighting a very small sample of race-mixing advertisements.
I love white people, and I am opposed to race-mixing. But I do not hate non-whites.
If you click on my name “awhitesoul2012” highlighted in blue below this comment, you can watch my video.
Thanks.
awhitesoul2012 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
This is one of my favorite videos about feminism's effects in the real world that I think ANYONE can benefit from: youtube.com/watch?v=Do5zrdTb-yI
ActaNonVerba71 1 week ago
What interview is that?
Aeimos 1 week ago
This is precisely why social science is not a real science. Physics uses large words to balance large mathematical equations, the human is complicated like the Universe. It will be simulated only by the nature by numbers equations we have for the mind. Watching action and logically trying to pinpoint why the action took place is pointless rhetoric. The mind will not be discovered by Chomsky and his big social words which his drones repeat for him. The mind is a machine that requires real science
Reido2828 1 week ago
@Reido2828 "Watching action and logically trying to pinpoint why the action took place is pointless rhetoric"
This is the main reason we are as intelligent as we are now.. we learn from mistakes, we learn from patterns. If we don't try to pinpoint why an action takes place, the action will continue to take place whether positive or negative. Do you not even turn your head towards sociology or psychology?
P.s. If I'm not mistaken that's a misuse of the term rhetoric.
fuckingsickadventure 1 week ago
@fuckingsickadventure
If people thought for them selves and took a more scientific approach to life, we wouldn't need leaches like Chomsky giving us complicated theories. These social theories have not been tried in a objective environment and They make unsubstantiated claims about consciousness, life, work, wage without a shred of evidence. this is why Biology, Physics, Astronomy, Computer Science and to an extent Cognitive science are far past the philosophy chains now.
Reido2828 1 week ago
@Reido2828 Take some shrooms.
Without sociology, how would we know what to do with the findings of biology, physics, astronomy, computer science etc.?
fuckingsickadventure 1 week ago
@fuckingsickadventure
Most of the sociologists/Philosophers of the past were actual scientists. The term science came into being I think in the 18th century. IE If Aristotle were alive today he would be a Physicist, biologist and playwright. Plato would be an artist, theologian etc. These are not results of sociology but of scientists studying the natural world. Chomsky is nothing more then a smooth talker or man who puts words together to make his ideas sound big.
Reido2828 1 week ago
@Reido2828 Sociology doesn't use the scientific method and empirical evidence for their claims? I could have sworn they did.
movcrit 1 week ago
@movcrit While behavioral psychology CAN and DOES use scientific principles in its research, sociology cannot, simply because it cannot create a control society to experiment on.
nickburnin8 1 week ago
@Reido2828
The limitations of the classical era allowed these men to spread their interests a great deal more than most modern scientists; for instance, someone studying the intricacies of the soybean genome, etc... Certainly, they may have other, broader interests, but they aren't going to have time to write books on philosophy. It's simply not a legitimate comparison.
meinLiebsterFeind 1 week ago
@Reido2828 noam chomsky is a linguist aka science of the study of human language so he is not just a smooth talker lol.
ISMEY 1 week ago
@ISMEY
What has he contributed to Linguistics? He writes books on social theories PERIOD. He has no empirical data to back up his claims
Reido2828 1 week ago
@Reido2828 You need to look up the word rhetoric (the definition related to the school of Rhetoric).
movcrit 1 week ago
@movcrit
No i don't I was referring to the text book definition and what Chomsky is trying to do is persuade people to re think actual academic science and come on board with his social theories which have 0 evidence or data on the claims. Why hasn't any scientist come forward yet with data in support of Chomsky? That's because he is distorting the idea of Social Science and trying re organize it hence RHETORIC. "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" Carl Sagan
Reido2828 1 week ago
@Reido2828 The textbook definition is from the school of rhetoric aka the art of persuasion which comes from the school of Sopholism. I don't believe his position is for Rhetoric but rather against logical positivism/empirical-ism (which doesn't need to result into rhetorical discussions because you can still have metaphysical statements) which stops humanities from being taken seriously.
movcrit 1 week ago
@movcrit
That's exactly what hes trying to do. Any social theorist that compares himself to the likes of a Quantum Physicist is more delusional then those that pray regularly. How can anyone try and persuade others to believe in his social theories? He has no evidence backing up his claims other then his own language. This isn't science, its just rhetoric on the political side. Its sad how many drones go and defend him to without weighing the evidence
Reido2828 1 week ago
@Reido2828 Dude, my point is not-science doesn't not automatically lead to rhetoric. I am not defending his position but your supposed assertion that his position is rhetorical. It may not be true or valid but it doesn't not mean that it's purpose is purely rhetorical. He is simply stating his opinions and not making an effort to appeal anyone either by logos, ethos, or pathos. His purpose is to state, not to persuade .'. its not rhetorical.
Just so you know I am against his position
movcrit 1 week ago
@Reido2828 Which is why I questioned your use of the word rhetoric in the first place. An argument or position isn't rhetoric simply because it has no evidence (that would be less logos and actually less rhetoric). A discussion without science can also be dialectical while seemly with little evidence.
movcrit 1 week ago
Tom Martin is suing Europe's largest gender studies department, for sex discrimination in relation to its curriculum's misleading propaganda, typically framing men as bad/guilty, and women as good/innocent. The court hearing date is on March 13th.
Read all the press etc at the sexismbusters website, and watch the YT vid here.
sexismBusters 1 week ago 14
where does he critique pomo or marxism?
BEANPOLE111 2 weeks ago 31
@BEANPOLE111 The critique is implied. He is saying that "critical theory" in the humanities (which is the basis for post-modernism and marxism in academia) is an attempt to legitimize their respective studies into sciences
wpfairbanks 1 week ago
@BEANPOLE111 What he was talking about was the postmodernist movement mainly centered around Paris, as he was talking about the common postmodernist reaction to criticisms at the end of the video.
radomu1 1 week ago
@BEANPOLE111 with every word.
cscambler 6 days ago
One trick is to take words and attach unconventional meanings to them. That's supposed to set you apart from the confused masses, who just aren't at your level intellectually.
4teepee 2 weeks ago
And Not actually engage in a worldview just dissect it from a far and then say you have no interest in the philosophic approach to criticism. I would love to get you to state a fallacious theory and not just something you disagree with. An objective lens is nothing more than a normative approach. I dare say ii thinks he knows what is deemed education. Sounding a bit high and whitey to me. A bit of hubris towards no doubt his own chosen field of self determination. I wish you well.
CheckHooKz 2 weeks ago
@iiwatcher I would love to engage in this most stimulating though often stifled discussion but.. I don't know where to begin, perhaps if you could not use 'theory' and 'ideology' interchangeably when one seeks popularity and thinks practically and the theorist seeks accuracy and thinks abstractly. Again you connect them and sort of banally go on to dismiss philosophy. Yes let's be the empiricist who denounces logic as bullshit. I get the nervous feeling you are trying to stick it to marxists..
CheckHooKz 2 weeks ago
The title of this video is complete projection. It's not even remotely close to what Chomsky said. Disingenuous at best.
TheeInsignificant 2 weeks ago
It's true.
The VAST majority of people could never grasp the hard sciences and mathematics, even if they spent their lives trying. I have never doubted that these attempts to force a scientific framework (actually it's really just language) on hunches and feelings are rooted in envy.
aIyshooting 2 weeks ago
@aIyshooting Pretty sweeping statement, if not also elitist. I would understand if most people couldn't MASTER the sciences like a professional can, but to say they couldn't grasp the material is a mistaken idea. If you study a subject well, you can grasp it. This is true for anyone of basic intelligence. As for the rest of your comment, I think it's envy, ambition, & status, as well as socio-political leeway to influence outcomes. For example, as with feminists.
iiwatcher 2 weeks ago
@ilwatcher "After looking into it, I think philosophy is mostly bullshit" hahaha, good one buddy...
I'm not going to let you waste my time anymore, I only recommend you read more and try to keep an open mind. The Sokal/Bricmont affair is worth reading up on, particularly Derrida's response, "On Metaphor".
petersoup 2 weeks ago
@petersoup That's no counter at all, helpful or otherwise. Of course, your free to run off. Good bye.
iiwatcher 2 weeks ago
i don't see why he oppses feminism.
fede2 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ilwatcher I think that what you're spewing is "ideological bilge" and I have just as much evidence as you do to back it up. You're just kind of ranting, making silly arguments. Maybe some Theory has gotten a little excessive, but you haven't shown me any convincing evidence at all that it should *all* be thrown out.
My original comment of babies in the bathwater still stands.
petersoup 2 weeks ago
You're being a but hypocritical in accusing me of logical fallacies when in turn you make baseless statements without backing them up. "your ranting, making silly arguments" is not a valid counter of any kind. Let your opinion stand then, I will continue to disagree, bc you haven't proved me wrong. (cont...)
iiwatcher 2 weeks ago
@iiwatcher EDIT: a "bit" hypocritical...
iiwatcher 2 weeks ago
@petersoup cont...Show me how feminist "theory" is a theory at all in the genuine academic sense and I'll hear you out. & please, no philosophical rants, or ideological indoctrination, or "theory" preaching--NOT INTERESTED--just prove how it is legit theory. I contend that if you throw out the ideological bilge passing as academic study & keep real academic subjects, no "babies" will die, I assure you.
iiwatcher 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ilwatcher 1) I started this thread, I set the topic, you commented. 2) I'm not off topic, merely asking a simple question and 3) ad hominems aren't really going to make your case.
petersoup 2 weeks ago
@petersoup 1. You may move the goalpost all you want. that is your choice. My choice is not to follow. I was, and am speaking about what is being taught in schools and how it is taught. That is the topic, as far as I'm concerned. 2. I gave you the answer. You're welcome to dislike it. (cont...)
iiwatcher 2 weeks ago
@petersoup 3. I don't know what you're referring to. After looking into it, I think philosophy is mostly bullshit. That's my opinion. That feminism (feminist studies in college) is not theory, but ideology is a fact. It's pure bullshit. You may disagree, but you won't be able to refute that fact. You'll probably at best try to drag me into some convoluted philosophical argument, at best.
iiwatcher 2 weeks ago
@iiwatcher Pardon the repetition there.
iiwatcher 2 weeks ago
Comment removed
32peartree 2 weeks ago
It means "reality" has we know it, has been transformed by the mass media into something what Baudrillard called hyper reality - an implosion of the real and the virtual. Take sport for instance - at one time you might say that radio and early TV was eavesdropping on the 'real' event - but now the event has become controlled by television - meaning the 'hyper real' event takes presidence over the actual 'real' event. And what goes for soccer goes for politics, culture, art, economics etc etc
32peartree 2 weeks ago
Here's the whole segment: w w w . archive . org /details/NoamChomsky-ScienceReligionHumanNature-session2-2010
iiwatcher 2 weeks ago
If that's the best he's got, I'm not impressed
Zop3 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Chomsky elaborates in the article on his website entitled "Rationality/Science"
petersoup 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ilwatcher "Women's studies, feminist studies, gender studies, queer theory, and any other classes disguised as "theory" that are nothing but post-modern, third wave feminist or otherwise socio-political bullshit, and useless ideological indoctrination" For someone who claims to favor hard evidence, this seems to me to be a fairly baseless ideological dismissal. ALL feminist theory, etc is BS? Evidence for this?
petersoup 2 weeks ago
@petersoup No hard evidence claimed or needed. You can't scientifically study ideological bilge. In the first place, feminism is not a theory of any kind, nor is there any such thing as feminist theory. It is an ideology, nothing more. Fighting for equal rights under just laws requires nothing more than common sense and basic logic. No need for feminism for that. Feminist discourse is pseudo-academic garbage.
iiwatcher 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ilwatcher
"Philosophy and all that bullshit is OK, as long as you keep out the political posturing & indoctrination & keep the study & teaching of it purely academic" So philosophy's ok as long as it doesn't try to change or affect the world in any way?
petersoup 2 weeks ago
@petersoup *Sigh* Stay on topic, I know it must be difficult for you. I'm talking about the STUDY of it in education. Philosophy, nor any other study should be about indoctrinating anyone to any particular point of view, political or otherwise. True education is presenting the evidence for something, and allowing the individual to come to their own conclusion based on the available info. I don't bother much w/ philosophy myself. Too much bullshit. You may enjoy it if you like.
iiwatcher 2 weeks ago
Chomsky criticizes the post modern thinkers for being pretentious - but if you get by the psycho babble some of their ideas are cogent and original. I think Baudrillard's work on the mass media goes further and deeper than Chomsky's - as he sees past the media's content i,e. propaganda - and concentrates instead on its form and malign influence on reality. To Baudrillard the medium is the message so to speak - not the content.
32peartree 2 weeks ago
@32peartree "he sees past the media's content i,e. propaganda - and concentrates instead on its form and malign influence on reality. To Baudrillard the medium is the message so to speak - not the content." What? What does that mean?
iiwatcher 2 weeks ago
@iiwatcher It simply means that the modern mass media's form - viz-a-viz 24 Hour rolling News, live satellite link ups, interactivity - have a much more of a profound effect on human consciousness than the propaganda it actually spews out. Propaganda models are nothing new - the church, radio, news reels - but they did not create the political and cultural stasis we see today - where despite massive riots, marches, civil disobedience - nothing ever seems to change.
32peartree 2 weeks ago
@iiwatcher 2) take the riots in Greece - in previous years - before the stranglehold of the mass media - we would have seen either a collapse of the government or a military takeover - yet the government hangs on forever in the face of massive pressure. Baudrillard posited in the media age all revolutions implode - or rather become simulacra revolutions processed by the mass media. The left really need to take Baudrillard's ideas seriously- and stop trying to use the medium and instead attack it
32peartree 2 weeks ago
biological sex does not determine a person’s identity. life goals, emotions, behaviors, preferences, and it shouldn’t determine our opportunities.
fuckingsickadventure 3 weeks ago
@fuckingsickadventure Sorry but I'm not gonna grow tits or shoot a baby out my dick
And yes these things do have an effect on your identity
panathinakosbear 3 weeks ago
@panathinakosbear Don't jinx yourself. ahah. Where did I say you were going to?
Please explain how our biological sex determines our preferences, emotions, behavoirs etc.
fuckingsickadventure 2 weeks ago
@fuckingsickadventure Because biological differences include hormonal differences, and these influence to a large extent our preferences, emotions, and behaviours.
Men and women very often think and process things differently. Everything of course, is on average, but men tend to be more technical and women tend to be more communicative. This is why women vastly outnumber men in the arts and social sciences, and men vastly outnumber women in the maths and sciences.
panathinakosbear 2 weeks ago
@fuckingsickadventure College and Uni professors love to blur the gender line and pass it off as a complete societal thing, but anyone who's spent time in the real world knows that men and women are fundamentally different on more than a physical level.
panathinakosbear 2 weeks ago
@panathinakosbear 1 Men and women are fundamentally different because they are treated as such. Gender is mainly a social construct, just as race. We are exposed to gender messages that overwhelmingly reinforce that hyper-masculinity is inherent to men, hyper-femininity is inherent to women, and together, they construct and establish two opposing realms in which we are socially pressured to fit.
fuckingsickadventure 2 weeks ago
@fuckingsickadventure They are not a social construct, don't even try it.
panathinakosbear 2 weeks ago
A prime example of BULLSHIT ideological construct presented as as theory. There is overwhelming scientific evidence that there are powerful biological substrates to gender, gender preference, and behavior. Of course, as with anything in nature, there are exceptions, but they are just that. They prove the rule, not deny it. And NO, I won't do your HW for you on youtube. Go do it yourself. It's probably wasted on a disingenuous ideologue such as yourself anyway.
iiwatcher 2 weeks ago
@panathinakosbear 2 If you are male and show any sort of femininity you are a wimp, wuss, girl, faggot etc. If you are a female and show any sort of masculinity you are a tomboy, dyke, lesbian, etc.
fuckingsickadventure 2 weeks ago
@fuckingsickadventure Oh yeah? I haven't seen it. I see rampantly the villainization of masculinity in men, coming off as "barbaric" or "simple minded", and the promotion of masculine traits in women as being "strong, independent, etc" however.
panathinakosbear 2 weeks ago
@panathinakosbear HAVEN'T SEEN IT?!(reinforcement of hyper masculinity to men & hyper femininity to women) Have you ever heard of Barbie? G.I. Joe? watched a Hollywood movie? Have you ever flicked through or even seen the cover of a 'glam' mag? Do you honestly think these things have not influenced how we identify or behave?
fuckingsickadventure 2 weeks ago
@panathinakosbear And yes the messages to men can be confusing and frustrating. As you said, men are portrayed as 'barbaric' or as animals in no control over sexual desire, personal gain, and no common sense. Guys are also portrayed as the ruler, the controller, the wise and the hero, so finding a place to fit is difficult.
fuckingsickadventure 2 weeks ago
@panathinakosbear And your comment pretty much reads as, "People who have dedicated years of their life studying and examining, and understanding how gender effects our lives have no say over people who are just obviously more knowlegable because they are in 'the real world' "
fuckingsickadventure 2 weeks ago
@fuckingsickadventure My first professor at a small town college was a former soldier in the soviet union for ten years and had studied under Lenin's biographer. He was also involved with cultural warfare against the democratic west.
It is his belief that the majority of western professors are delusional and influenced by marxist propaganda, something he helped spread.
Having a title like "professor" doesn't mean anything. Many of them deserve to lose their jobs I believe
panathinakosbear 2 weeks ago
@fuckingsickadventure People who spend their lives honestly studying gender via evidence based approach know the truth about gender. People who spend their lives constructing pseudo "theories" about gender without regard to academic, scientific, or objectively honest approach have ZERO credible say in the matter. Case in point: your baseless, circular rhetoric.
iiwatcher 2 weeks ago
You'd think Nim could afford false teeth.
Tsnore 3 weeks ago
ohhh sorry imean fucked.....
krdand 3 weeks ago
all feminist should be fuck up the arse ....
krdand 3 weeks ago
What interview was this? At least give the title & context so we can try to find the whole thing. This is too interesting to leave it at that.
iiwatcher 3 weeks ago 4
@iiwatcher The cutaway to the interviewer... it looks like Michael Albert. If you find the longer interview, please reply back!
Andkon4Everything 2 weeks ago
@Andkon4Everything I found something. This series of video is very hard to find. It falls under the title: "Noam Chomsky - Science, Religion, & Human Nature." It's a series of videos. I found one part where he talks about the same subject as the video here. w w w . archive . org /details/NoamChomsky-ScienceReligionHumanNature-session2-2010
iiwatcher 2 weeks ago
@iiwatcher Here's the text: bit.ly / AAwPeZ
Andkon4Everything 2 weeks ago
@Andkon4Everything Cool thanks. If you find any more vids let me know. : )
iiwatcher 2 weeks ago
@iiwatcher Here's two more, can't find the first one: archive.org /details/NoamChomsky-EducationAndEconomics-session3-2010
archive.org /details/NoamChomsky-ThePoliticalSystem-session4-2010
Andkon4Everything 2 weeks ago
@Andkon4Everything Eh, search Google with the /details stuff and you'll find it.
Andkon4Everything 2 weeks ago
@iiwatcher Actually here's the easiest:
1. Go to archive.org
2. Type in Woods Hole to search *and*
3. Select Community Video from right drop-down
4. Tada, you get all five sessions.
Andkon4Everything 2 weeks ago
Comment removed
iiwatcher 2 weeks ago
@Andkon4Everything PS: Yes, the link I posted is the longer part of this video on youtube. I'll keep looking for more. It seems there are about 5 parts. In the meantime, if you can find the whole series, or at least more videos of it please let's keep this thing going and reply back!
iiwatcher 2 weeks ago
Throw out theory because it's just humanities professors tryin to look big... so how far back does it have to go? Kant? Plato?
babies in there bath water...
petersoup 3 weeks ago
@petersoup Women's studies, feminist studies, gender studies, queer theory, and any other classes disguised as "theory" that are nothing but post-modern, third wave feminist or otherwise socio-political bullshit, and useless ideological indoctrination (e.g., Marxism, as it is "taught" by far leftist ideologues). Philosophy and all that bullshit is OK, as long as you keep out the political posturing & indoctrination & keep the study & teaching of it purely academic.
iiwatcher 2 weeks ago
Um....Marx is the first guy who tried to give social science a methodical, testable scientific basis in Das Kapital. The predictions he made in these volumes have recently been proved with renewed vigour. If you equate contemporary marxism with the Frankfurt school, then it's a continuation of this aspect of Marx in particular. How is this video a criticism of marxism?...Post-modernism sure (except Foucault), but not marxism. What about marxist feminism btw, or liberal feminism?
mcnesta80 3 weeks ago
@mcnesta80 Oh really? What predictions? On the large social scale, there are always far too many uncontrolled variables to allow for any genuine testing of scientific laws, and the "laws" of social science, if they are laws at all, are statistical, meaning that they are wrong much of the time. If economics were really scientific, economists would all be rich. The 20th century Marxist experiments all failed, apart from watered-down social democracy. Marx and God are both dead.
gspaulsson 3 weeks ago
@gspaulsson If you think Leninism, Stalinism and Maoism were Marxist experiments, you haven't read much Marx. There's nothing Marxist about transitioning straight from feudalism to fascism. The main prediction of Marxist theory is that the laws and norms of a society will conform to the logic of capital, and that this logic will inevitably lead to credit bubbles which take out the whole economy when they burst, provoking revolutionary action (e.g. New Deal).
mcnesta80 3 weeks ago
@mcnesta80 An example of the "no true Scotsman" fallacy. Marx predicted revolutionary outcomes because he didn't see how capitalism could get itself out of an inventory recession, but we have seen probably 50 recessions since Marx wrote. He adopted Ricardo's labour theory of value, which is fallacious - it is really a labour theory of cost, whereas value = utility. Profit ("surplus value") does not reduce aggregate demand as Marx thought - rich people invest and buy Ferraris..
gspaulsson 3 weeks ago
@gspaulsson I can see this is about to come down to the classic argument between a western marxist and a utilitarian. If you really want my counter, read Honneth on the psycho-social basis of labour as value. Also, Keynesian business cycles weren't exactly predicted by Marx. 1890, 1929 and 2007 are the crashes that really validate his macroeconomics for me.
mcnesta80 3 weeks ago
@mcnesta80 but none of those crashes was the predicted"final crisis of capitalism". Marxism is a 19th-century grand narrative, all of which tried to explain history as a struggle between ideas, classes, nations, races, etc., That kind of book (e.g. Jared Diamond) is fun to read, but basically nonsense. Capitalism has evolved in ways that Marx did not predict: the big pools of capital now are pension funds ($32 trillion) and sovereign funds - both weird forms of social ownership.
gspaulsson 2 weeks ago
@gs 2007 might just prove to be the start of the final crisis, but also Marx predicted many crises and false revolutions before the real thing. You're absolutely right that Marx didn't predict the way Capitalism evolved in a complex sense, but Marxists like Lukacs and Marcuse did. If you want to argue against Marxism as a sociological research method, then you have to argue against the whole history of the Frankfurt school, not just Karl. That'd be like restricting a critique of pm to Nietzsche.
mcnesta80 2 weeks ago
@gspaulsson Also, be fair. Jared Diamond is all over the shop. Marx has a strict materialistic basis. Ideas, nations and races as categories are all the product of what we do in our day to day struggle for the material means to survive and flourish. There's the major insight that Marx uses to put the science into social science. While Sartre and Heidegger were contemplating their navels, Frankfurt school was developing theory based on social research.
mcnesta80 2 weeks ago
Where is the larger context/video?
IntellectualPopulist 3 weeks ago 15
@IntellectualPopulist Yes, I wonder this too. This is totally taken out of context, and the topic seems interesting. A reference or a link to whole interview would be very appreciated.
Illvaettr 3 weeks ago
it would have been nice to heat the rest of his comment, calling it "appealing" yields slight agreement..yet the rest of his statement would have peeved off a majority of his followers and illiterati in the academies who slap his name on the covers of their books to sell them because the have no mind of their own.
allaboutdatGDA 3 weeks ago
Oh and I also gotta love the leftist censorship here with the fraudulent spam-flaggings of my comments. Keep up your wonderful tactics. Sadly though, you won't be able to delete them :].
interestingperson121 3 weeks ago
Hahaha this parade of idiots like Razvan et. all is getting more hilarious by the minute. Calling chomsky, someone who teaches at MIT , revolutionized linguistics, profoundly impact Cognitive psychology and is regarded as one of the smartest people in academia a Charlatan has to be one of the funniest psychological projections I've ever seen. Also, check out the uses of the word theoretical apparatus. And oh please, sloppy can be best attributed to shitty PoMo lines of irrational un-reasoning.
interestingperson121 3 weeks ago
Am I the only one to think that Chomsky is a well meaning charlatan? His tirades against french academia are getting tiresome and, if anything, indicate the narrow scope of his theoretical apparatus. He's sloppy at best.
RazvanGrozny 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Some people want young white females to mix with non-white males.
I made a one-minute video highlighting a very small sample of race-mixing advertisements.
I love white people, and I am opposed to race-mixing. But I do not hate non-whites.
If you click on my name “awhitesoul2012” highlighted in blue below this comment, you can watch my video.
Thanks.
awhitesoul2012 3 weeks ago
I agree, the humanities are mostly BS and filler. Good choice of major if you want to drink your way through college though. Basically the biggest things you learn is how to BS and how to force yourself to do homework while still drunk. That's a liberal arts education.
weedipikia 4 weeks ago
@weedipikia I wouldn't exactly say that. Sure, some papers may deal with mere truism and actually narrow your thinking, but there are plenty of papers that critically analyze society, the way things operate, etc. etc.
I am a business student and it strikes me as quite strange that in Business school, we hardly ever consider the business world critically or the impact it has on society.
toseeornot2see 3 weeks ago
@weedipikia If you are happy with a C average, that is. If you want an A from me, you'd better demonstrate good critical thinking skills, sound research and the ability to express your ideas lucidly. I'm an historian, and I don't know if any of my students have gone on to become historians, but the skills they acquired by doing history will serve equally in researching, analysing and writing up real-world problems, beyond the narrow technical ambit of science and engineering.
gspaulsson 3 weeks ago
Not all the humanities are crap. History is an example. Unfortunately, we have less & less academic & empirical approaches & more & more bullshit theory & socio-political indoctrination going on in the classrooms. Sometimes it is the class that's bullshit, e.g., feminist studies, sometimes it is the teaching approach. The scientific approach (evidence based) as much as it is possible given the subject matter, is always the best.(cont...)
iiwatcher 2 weeks ago
@iiwatcher You may be ill informed on feminism.
fuckingsickadventure 2 weeks ago
@fuckingsickadventure That's what they all say. Funny thing...religious people say the same thing to rationalize their beliefs. Another good ons the 'ol "not all feminists are like that" and the good 'ol "there are many kinds of feminism" and so on. It's an agenda driven , ideological, separatist self-interest movement, and that is all. If you're for equal rights FOR ALL under just laws, no feminism needed. Just be a human rights advocate/activist. Simple.
iiwatcher 2 weeks ago
@iiwatcher EDIT: another good "one" is...
iiwatcher 2 weeks ago
@iiwatcher 1 You may have sent this to the wrong person. Could you clarify what it is 'they all say'? Of course feminism, being a movement, has an agenda. And yes the agenda is the same as of human rights advocates, but injustice exists for complex reasons especially pertaining to race, class, and gender and so must be analyzed through different lenses. So feminism is a political perspective that uses gender to critically analyze power. Social injustices are viewed with a gender lens.
fuckingsickadventure 2 weeks ago
Comment removed
fuckingsickadventure 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Sigh* Another retard. OK I'll spell it our for u: 1. "That's what they all say" is a very common expression. It means that certain ppl or groups spew the same rhetoric over & over again. The rhetoric I gave examples of are superfluously common to feminist apologetic. 2. "And yes the agenda is the same as of human rights advocates" Uh, NO it isn't. Human rights advocates do not exclude half of the equation. They fight for injustice for ALL equally, not just for "wymin."
iiwatcher 2 weeks ago
Cont... 3. "injustice exists for complex reasons" No shit Sherlock. 4. "especially pertaining to race, class, and gender and so must be analyzed through different lenses." What? There begins your ideological rhetoric. One can analyze injustice with the same "lens" regardless of the issue. Injustice is injustice. It's obvious stuff. No need to fabricate elaborate psuedo-theories. (cont...)
iiwatcher 2 weeks ago
cont...5. "So feminism is a political perspective that uses gender to critically analyze power." You said it, not me! Excpet you don't realize the truth of what you just said. EXCEPT, the analysis is hardly "critical." it is ideologically based, not evidence based. But you are right in stating that feminists USE GENDER for the purposes of that which pertains to POWER. (cont...)
iiwatcher 2 weeks ago
@fuckingsickadventure 6. "Social injustices are viewed with a gender lens." Yes, by feminists, bc they use gender to propagate their separatist, self interest goals through pseudo-academic, deconstructionist nonsense--in order to establish a victim mentality of men via an "oppressive patriarchy" dogma that establishes men as oppressors and women as victims, as well as propagating anti-scientific BILGE about gender. (cont...)
iiwatcher 2 weeks ago
@fuckingsickadventure cont...It's almost a cult.
This is a no brainier to anyone with a smidgeon of integrity: Spotting injustice is common sense & universal to all humans. No feminism, masculinity or any other "ism" is needed. (cont...)
iiwatcher 2 weeks ago
EDIT: "masculanism" not masculinity....
iiwatcher 2 weeks ago
Comment removed
fuckingsickadventure 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@iiwatcher A]] Okay. so I now realize we are on the same side, although you believe feminism is a separatist, self-interest movement/group for women to gain power. In regards to 2. Feminism is a movement/tool that focuses on gender inequalities, this does not mean they exclude or don't care about inequality linked with race, class etc. 3. I stated 'injustice exists for complex reasons' to introduce the different 'lenses' concept. & Im not sure if you do realize the complexity. for you state,
fuckingsickadventure 2 weeks ago
@fuckingsickadventure I'll respond by your numerical order. 2. It's an unnecessary tool and a divisive one. Inequalities (which I take to mean forms of injustice, discrimination, oppression) among men & women can easily be addressed, and even better w/o feminism. 3. No need to reiterate. I understood your comment, & have heard the "lenses" argument before. it's standard feminist "theory" rhetoric.(cont...)
iiwatcher 2 weeks ago
@fuckingsickadventure We don't need a feminist lens to know when a woman is being discriminated against or what to do about it. It's a human rights issue that in such a case, specifically refers to women. When a man is discriminated against we do not need a masculanism theory or movement to address it either. Repeat with children (toddlerism), the elderly (geriatrism), etc. Feminism IS what I stated. That's not a belief. It's a fact in the real world.
iiwatcher 2 weeks ago
@iiwatcher B] "injustice is injustice" "it's obvious stuff" and thus we only need one 'lens', or one approach 4. How can you claim what I'm saying is "fabricated elaborate psuedo-theories" when you just stated you did not understand? Let me try again with the lens concept. You argue, "One can analyze injustice with the same 'lens' regardless of the issue". Injustice is broad. Therefore you say the lens to examine the injustice is with a broad lens. If we analyze/break down the injustice we find
fuckingsickadventure 2 weeks ago
@fuckingsickadventure I didn't state I do not understand, nor did I claim all issues can be addressed via one approach. Please refrain from such logical fallacies, or otherwise disingenuous tactics. It makes you seem dishonest. 4. you're just repeating yourself.
iiwatcher 2 weeks ago
@iiwatcher C] that it is not as broad as it seemed and we will need narrower/more-specific lens. Now that we see these injustices are intertwined in race, class, and gender issues we can use a lens for each issue and more effectively examine and hopefully fix the broader problem. The key is working together and making connections/relations between what is found by means of feminism, class, and race studies. 5. Yes, I said it. and since you misunderstood the lens concept, you misread it. I don't
fuckingsickadventure 2 weeks ago
What feminists want in this "lens" concept of yours is to be able to construct elaborate ideologies around such issues, and pass them off as "theory." Injustice is injustice & needs no genius or complex ideology to figure it out. If you are deprived, let's say, of a job bc you're a woman, that's injustice. Or Black--that's injustice. No need to fabricate a "patriarchy theory" bullshit to wage some war against the almighty oppressive man to gain power. That's what fems do.
iiwatcher 2 weeks ago
@iiwatcher D] know how you changed my words into "feminists use gender for purposes of that which pertains to power". Why cant an analysis of how gender affects our lives be evidence based? 6. you NEED to understand that feminist does not equal women. A feminist is one whom sees a wrong in the inequality of the sexes, limiting gender expectations(for men&women), and discrimination against anyone of LGTB. Considering feminists are men, women, trannys, gays, both-sex, dont identify, etc.
fuckingsickadventure 2 weeks ago
@fuckingsickadventure D--it's all about power for feminists. I'm not changing your words. I'm pointing out the reality behind them and stating my assertions. Feminists almost invariably use fabricated nonsense & try to pass it off as evidence based. Analysis regarding gender can be evidence based. There is a tool for that. It's called science. No agenda driven, ideological movement needed. (cont...)
iiwatcher 2 weeks ago
@fuckingsickadventure 6. No, I don't NEED to understand any such thing. You're making rather pretentious assumptions. You state the obvious. I know what a feminist is & what feminism is. I know it isn't a sex. Plenty of men are feminist. Are we clear about what I understand now?
iiwatcher 2 weeks ago