So, once again, your revisionism, purporting to innovate, has regressed.
thirds doorbell rings every time hes tagged on here its actually very inconvenient for himyou do that to people all the time though
easily the most incoherent thread in the history of the forum
I know sex education in American schools is notoriously poor, but the ancients understood very well that it takes two to tango, and that women (or females of any species) can no more impregnate themselves, or each other, than men can.Mr Tea quit making a fool out of yourself! If you find yourself arguing that men are as strongly associated with fertility in traditional cultures as women then you know you're on the losing side of an argument. Dionysus—god of wine and drunkenness—is your example, and not the twelve Greek goddesses who are associated with sex, beauty, agriculture, hunt, wilderness, moon, childbirth, marriage, plants, and spring?
I just wanted to talk about identity politics and theories of identity, guys. I don't know about theology. I do know that I want to fight Andrew Tate, and we don't need a full-blown proletarian revolution to do so. We would benefit from a culture that permits men to act feminine and critiques the male fantasy, and increases representation of feminine voices. These are the ways we can use identity politics to fight people like Tate. If anyone has any other alternatives to Tate, let me know.
Or some Turkish gabber that's far superior and which nobody else has ever heard of.third's doorbell plays fifteen minutes of punishing belgian gabba every time someone rings it
Instead of focusing on Tate, we might instead target the manosphere or red pill ideology that involves Tate. A hypermasculinity underlies the red pillers that Butler enables us to critique. Some change is possible within a system. Progress doesn't always require us to go beyond the limits of our contemporary system. We can live lives that pose real alternatives to traditional masculinity. And yes, traditional masculinity is a bigger threat than traditional femininity, because traditionally the discourse has blocked out femininity. We assume the subject is masculine unless stated otherwise, but there definitely is a feminine subject.
And I'm not content to let the red pill ideology collapse under its own contradictions. Some activist critique of masculinity benefits the anti-red-pill movement.
You're just focusing on the discourse. How do you actually move people away from the manosphere? Critique is useless if it does not become the arms to criticism.
Yes, we don't require proletarian revolution to enact small changes, but you seem to think activism doesn't possess its own understanding which is constricted by political subjectivity. Noone would have cared or even taken notice of Jordan Peterson were it not for your friends hastily bowdlerising Marxism in the service of hyper campus activism and impatiently (without any study and deliberation) attempting to locate a pseudo-revolutionary subject in students, of all people! you are responsible for Peterson. Fix that first!
You move people away from the manosphere by promoting feminine culture against the patriarchy, phallus, and toxic masculinity.
Judith Butler's whole theory is about how activism is constrained by political subjectivity. The point about Peterson is a non-sequitur. No one critiqued the "pseudo revolutionary subject" more than Butler, and Foucault before her. It's not clear you have a firm grasp on Butler's theory. Thus it is you who has bowlderized Butler. And before you say you're critiquing me, not Butler, know that my view is basically the same as Butler's with a few minor additions.
Bordigan anarchist OWNED by gender theorist! Unbelievable reaction!
Bordiga FEELS the gender trouble!
empty words, more words and more words. I'm asking for concrete proposals, not abstractions about xyz culture. What form will this feminin culture take? A white one? one based on ressentiment?
Except I didn't say that activism was constrained by political subjectivity (which would mean I would be saying activism is insufficiently political.) I said activism possesses an understanding which is constricted by political subjectivity, I.E: that activism is precisely too political, that it is constrained within the political sphere because of its hyperpoliticisation, and cannot therefore think in terms of the non-political. I.E: activism seeks to interpret the world, the point, however, is to cognise how the world understands and interprets itself.
But Butler, like Foucault, thinks everything is political ((or more correctly, a performance of politics) which mystifies politics to such a degree that all meanings of the political process are obfuscated. Althusserian structuralisms main defect is to see the social relations as technical, and science possessing an objective dimension above that of class society. It is, however, the very historicism that Marx takes from Hegel, something Althusser denies, and Foucault is shaped by this erronious interpretation. Hence the process of discourse analysis becomes a question of domination. But capital is a relation of force, not a relation of strict domination, killing your oppressors means nothing if said social relations persist. It is why all ideologies under capitalism sooner or later gravitate to liberalism, (especially and including leftist and anarchist ones) precisely because capitalism designates a specific central political sphere, that being the state.
Peterson is relevant to this precisely because he is attacking a false enemy, that being post-modern neo-marxist identitarians. But because he shares the liberal framework of most of the people he is criticising, he is trapped in an insoluble contradiction. CF: Andrew Tate's supposed conversion to Islam, he would not be able to advocate half of what he does in a conservative islamic society precisely because he is insufficiently conservative. Traditional forms of masculine culture also possess noblesse oblige, which is entirely abscent in America. The idea of chad vs alpha vs beta would be completely and utterly abhorrent to any islamic scholar, even those who think women should stay at home behind purdah.
If indeed you and Butler are such trenchant critics of the pseudo-revolutionary subject, then why do you participate in a discourse which reifies it? The feminin culture you speak of is also indelibly shaped by capitalist rationality, it does not exist orthogonal to it. In fact, this idea of the feminin being intuitive and less about hyper instrumental rationality at its core capitulates to misogyny, by reinstating the gendered divisions of feudalistic society. Girlboss is an absolute advance on this, and you know it.