Mr. Tea
Let's Talk About Ceps
I'd heard of her, but only in the context of having written unequivocally the worst book of all time.
Judith Butler and the new identity politics?
- Thread starter malelesbian
- Start date
WashYourHands
Cat Malogen
and cat memes
WashYourHands
Cat Malogen
Mr. Tea
Let's Talk About Ceps
How do you mean? I Can Has Subjectivity?, that sort of thing?
vimothy
yurp
amen
WashYourHands
Cat Malogen
WashYourHands
Cat Malogen
malelesbian
Femboyism IS feminism.
For the record, the kind of historical metaphysical social theorizing Butler does was not at all popular in universities as of 2018 when I left graduate school But then again, I studied academic philosophy.
I will also say that it is unfair to claim that men representing feminine perspectives detract from women representing feminine perspectives. There's room enough for both. Too many men refuse to get in touch with their feminine side.
I can see why people would reject Irigaray's claim that cultural reality is coded as either masculine or feminine. But I can't see any refutation to this claim. Sexual difference does seem to me to be at the foundation of culture.
Academic philosophers are not tapped by the CIA. they mostly get bogged down in conditional statements and formal logic. Not as useful as existentially tormented lit studies, sociology and gender studies students.
why do you think corpsey is consumed by porn? Because he studied English literature.
here it's different, here to be a recruit to mi5 you have to be a blue blooded (potential)Goblin-nonce. America is pretty good in this regard, use meritocracy to co-opt disgruntled rotting petit-bourgeois scum into the state structure. That's why you never really get pro-dictatorship advocates in America. even their socialists are revolting democrats.
here it's different, here to be a recruit to mi5 you have to be a blue blooded (potential)Goblin-nonce. America is pretty good in this regard, use meritocracy to co-opt disgruntled rotting petit-bourgeois scum into the state structure. That's why you never really get pro-dictatorship advocates in America. even their socialists are revolting democrats.
sus
Moderator
Agree with your point broadly but worth pointing out that "he" doesn't so much make this association as western culture does. All the arguments are also in Paglia's Sexual Personae twenty years ago because they're noticing the same thing. Nature is consistently cast as both feminine and chaotic in Western mythic structure; man as an ordering or rational force.
malelesbian
Femboyism IS feminism.
@thirdform You sound like Gabriel Rockhill. I will say this: the people who think post-structuralism was pushed at the expense of Marxism in the late 20th century have a point. But this point ignores the work the post structuralists did on Marx as well as the original contributions to social theory of Foucault for example. The way I see it, the dominant culture in America is anti-intellectualism. The counter culture should present an intellectual alternative, and the post-structuralists are great for that. I admit that most post structuralists don't have concrete programs about distributive justice or how to change material conditions. But cultural representation is important too, and Marxists hardly have a Marxist identity politics available to them, even though, ironically Hegel created the politics of recognition. What's wrong with reading Marxist theory and post structuralism side by side and trying to create a new theory that combines both? Right, the charge of revisionism. But I like revision. I think that shows the greatness of a theory when it's able to persist despite numerous revisions. We need to revise our theories to deal with cases we didn't think of when we made our theories.
malelesbian
Femboyism IS feminism.
My version of this feminist counternarrative, my critique of phallocentrism, critiques a totalizing tendency in masculinity that makes everything about the phallus, the main symbolic representative of the masculine imaginary. The phallus wants to put its tentacles in everything, to treat everything as a means to phallic pleasure. In this way, I do critique instrumental rationality, but not rationality in general.
sus
Moderator
Hmmm I tend to feel like the phallus stuff is a red herring. Can you tell us more concretely what "phallocentrism" looks like in everyday male behavior?
malelesbian
Femboyism IS feminism.
@sus Ego-centrism, over-reliance on traditional masculinity, dedication to the male fantasy, and also a focus on systemic order and instrumental rationality. Ever notice how red-pillers always go on about doing chores and getting up to go to work? It's because patriarchal masculinity is all about achieving goals. Andrew Tate basically is a mega-phallocentrist. The male fantasy is real and I think we know what it looks like. Men believing that their status increases the more women they sleep with who then try to maximize the number of women they sleep with exemplify phallocentrism.
marxism is not an academic theory with its pros and cons which can be equally weighted in a market place of ideas. If that were so, it would be subject to the same kind of ideological political antagonism I outlined upthread, and there would be no reason to be a Marxist, because Marxism could not critique the faecal matter of ideology and ideological reproduction, if you will. Consequently, there would be no good reason to be a marxist or a communist, and you would reintroduce ideas pertaining to catholic heresy into your thinking. There is no heresy, only deviation from the correct and scientific lines of enquiry. We critique revisionism precisely for regressing back to an atavistic form of thought, and reintroducing metaphysical quackery (aka: theocratic fetish.) Correct orientations are only ascertained by ruthless dialectical enquiry, which can only ever resolve to an indefatigably necessary schematism — as a philosopher you should know that this is the essence of experimental science! One does not reject a hypothesis simply because it is incomplete, but the hypothesis as such must be disproven. If for instance one took a revisionist approach to Darwin's hypotheses as you say, then you would have to necessarily combine evolution with theism, which certain conservatives have to do because they are unable to comprehend just how science works. An affliction, by the way, shared by most of the left today.
On the contrary, Marxism is a theoretical doctrine for revolutionary war, not to affirm identity politics either (another egoistic sickness of bourgeois society.) The working class has no identity as a social fact of capitalism, and only acts for itself within its political party... much less about redistributive justice, inane social democratic philistinism if ever!
This is why it is preferable to negate and falsify it than to revise it. In fact, negators are the most consistent, whereas modernisers always define and redefine terms for their own benefit, and the hope of obtaining a soggy parliamentary cushion.
Also, Marxism is not a theory that was made by one head thinking, in absentia it was a collective effort based on lengthy historical time sequences. Your idea of a theory being made by a great man of knowledge is metaphysical idealist rubbish. It is also bizarre to me that you speak of Hegel's politics of recognition when Althusser A) rejected Hegelianism and B) failed to understand what Marx got from Hegel, that is to say his historicism. What you are advocating is not historical recognition but immediate recognition, as if recognition as such can be pursued as a disembodied process divorced from the absolute totality of a mode of production. Consciousness always comes last.
In any case, American culture is incapable of intellectualism without losing its world imperial might. Humanities-related intellectual pursuits are incompatible with aircraft carriers and bombing. Counter-cultures in this sense merely end up putting a human face on imperialism. We do not need more middle class crybabies, hippies and punks were bad enough!