Judith Butler and the new identity politics?

T

thirdform

pass the sick bucket
anyway, like i told climactic boy yesterday, I don't appreciate being tagged randomly.

This is my parting shot to you: You can't stop yourself, and neither can Andrew Tate. Only the proletarian revolution can, by destroying both of your powers. When Butler becomes interested in the hard science of war (that is to say class war) will she peak my interest. Otherwise I have plenty of tafsirs which are 1000 years old which do deconstruction with much more efficacy.

I do not wish to engage any further, cheers.
 
malelesbian

malelesbian

Femboyism IS feminism.
To recap what we've learned so far:

(1) Identity politics is relevant to contemporary culture.
(2) Judith Butler's work shows us the foundations of identity politics.
(3) Traditional masculinity has gone too far at least in cases like Andrew Tate.
(4) My alternative: promoting feminine culture. Others have claimed that feminine culture exists in many cases but no one has given an example yet.
(5) Some may reject my assumption that our culture is split in two: a masculine culture of selfish conquest and a feminine culture of diverse difference. Phallic culture ignores feminine culture. If you think my assumption is false, I challenge you to show that our culture is not fundamentally based around distinctions between the self and the other.
 
T

thirdform

pass the sick bucket
6) some people subscribe to the perspective of barbaric nomadism and would like to see your sedentary culture, masculine and feminin, in the fucking gutter where it
belongs.
 
T

thirdform

pass the sick bucket
malelesbian said:
(5) Some may reject my assumption that our culture is split in two: a masculine culture of selfish conquest and a feminine culture of diverse difference. Phallic culture ignores feminine culture. If you think my assumption is false, I challenge you to show that our culture is not fundamentally based around distinctions between the self and the other.
Click to expand...

White women of diverse difference. Oh please! and don't give me that we need to be intersectional. that's a cop out and you know it. The fact is any metaphysical pursuit within western culture (same applies to eastern cultures in reverse) will necessarily be based on western centrism. Science, on the other hand, is able to (to varying degrees) transcend the myopia of a particular culture.
 
Mr. Tea

Mr. Tea

Let's Talk About Ceps
sus said:
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.
Click to expand...
OK, sure, but whether Peterson came up with the idea by himself isn't important. The point is that he's promoting it.

Further, I don't think the identification of Nature (however exactly you understand the term) with an exclusively feminine principle is either universal or all that old. In fact I'm willing to bet it arose during either the Enlightenment era or the subsequent Romantic movement, as Christianity's grip on the Western mind weakened and people were attracted to the idea of there being Father-worship - exemplified by the Abrahamic religions - and Mother-worship, with the latter identified with the religions presumed to dominate across western Eurasia before the spread of Christianity and Islam. (This is pretty much the basis of Margaret Murray's witch-cult hypothesis, which was very popular and influential, although it's largely been discredited.) But in fact, male deities associated with fertility and vegetation are extremely common: Dionysus/Bacchus and Freyr in Europe, Ba'al and countless others in the Near East, Osiris in Egypt, the ubiquitous Corn God in Mesoamerica...
 
sus

sus

Moderator
malelesbian said:
@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.
Click to expand...
OK, I mean, some of this is circular—that masculine phallocentrism is defined by its masculinity—and then some of it, the stuff about systemic order, has nothing to do with a phallus (and is arguably more about the West than it is about men, and is also repeating a lot of myths that men have made about themselves which feminists have fairly challenged). Doesn't really feel productive to me, to call this phallocentrism or think about it this way. There are infinite egocentrist women in the media spotlight too.

I think making everything about sex in some ultimate sense, this obsession with status and accomplishment as a means to sex, is more reasonable to call phallocentrism—the name makes sense at least—but from an evolutionary perspective, women are equally sex-obsessed, and everything they do is "about" sex to the same extent men's behavior is.
 
sus

sus

Moderator
Wouldn't it be better just to say you're in favor of a more caring, responsible, less egotistical approach? Than to reify an association between rationality and men's bodily genitals? Following some century-old Freudian scheme that's basically pseudoscience?
 
sus

sus

Moderator
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?
 
sus

sus

Moderator
thirdform said:
mostly @craner - and he's fair game. He is permitted to tag me. Not some random anon who joined the forum a week ago.
Click to expand...
Thirdform this "don't tag me" shit is the literal stupidest thing I've seen you or anybody write on this forum. Male Lesbian, please ignore him and instead be awed by my devastating critique of phallocentrism as a useful framework.
 
T

thirdform

pass the sick bucket
sus said:
Thirdform this "don't tag me" shit is the literal stupidest thing I've seen you or anybody write on this forum. Male Lesbian, please ignore him and instead be awed by my devastating critique of phallocentrism as a useful framework.
Click to expand...

Yes, we know you don't have bidets in your houses, you don't need to be loud and proud about it.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: sus
T

thirdform

pass the sick bucket
anyway like I've said before, feminism is largely built upon particularist metaphysical foundations and hence can only really act within those gradiants. It's why black feminists will call themselves black feminists, third world/proletarian feminists will constantly affix this to their name, marxist feminists, trans-feminists, lesbian feminists, etc etc...

big tent feminism is mostly foundationally based on suffrage during the Victorian and Edwardian eras, and hence inevitably sooner or later cleaves to racism because of its very craft union nature. Woman as platonic ideal and man as platonic ideal are nonexistent, as Lacan says, There is no sexual relation. meaning that "As conjoining masculine and feminine, we apprehend the prevalence of what is presented as travesty…”
“Through the mediation of masks, the masculine and the feminine meet in the most acute, most intense way.”

The secret feminism does dare not speak is that the gender relation as real abstraction introduces man and woman tout court. Otherwise we simply have mere biology. Incidentally, something Benny B is unable to comprehend. male and female as biological concepts are inherently meaningless without the conceptual baggage we attach to them within our social existence. Foolish man!

It is humans who are able to manipulate this mask, the field of play.

for instance, one would like to ask @malelesbian - how does he know he want to eat fanny? Not that he desires it and can't get it and hence fantasises about it. How does he know his fantasy? how does he comprehend it?
 
T

thirdform

pass the sick bucket
Love as such introduces the illusion of sexual relation, love as such drags one to the impossibility of jouissance, its inability to be fulfilled.

But love in the formula of couples or polycules is not emancipatory, the exact opposite in fact. It is precisely why promiscuity and casual sex is so prevalent today, not merely because people have become less religious, but because the sexual relationship as illusion necessitates fantasy, and in todays mercantile sewer, the fantasy can only be fulfilled by proprietorship.

Only under communism can the species recognise its universal love for the will to live, and hence will be able to fully bring this contradiction into consciousness. The issue is not to create xyz harmonious sexual relationship, because there shall be no ownership of land, tools and means of production, not even by one class.
 
malelesbian

malelesbian

Femboyism IS feminism.
sus said:
Wouldn't it be better just to say you're in favor of a more caring, responsible, less egotistical approach? Than to reify an association between rationality and men's bodily genitals? Following some century-old Freudian scheme that's basically pseudoscience?
Click to expand...


First off, I'm not a follower of Karl Popper. It doesn't matter to me whether or not Freud is pseudoscience. I'm not doing science I'm giving a gendered ontological interpretation of social reality. Not everyone has to do science -- the belief that all knowledge must be scientific is a bias rampant in analytic philosophy, where no one knows anything about sociology. I'm good at reading literature, philosophy and social theory, thus that's what I talk about. Give the humanities some credit, please.
Second of all the phallus is the master signifier. Any discourse that takes a single principle to order all its contents or tries to reduce everything to the self is a phallicentric discourse. It's fine to say I want to be more caring and responsible. And of course phallic women exist. But we should critique our own toxic masculinity too. Like you said, Western thought in general has an ethnocentric tendency to make everything about Westerners. It's this egocentric ethnocentricity we critique when we critique phallocentrism. Phallic masculinity is the urge to conquer through knowledge or power, to subordinate the other to one' system. I'm just advocating for the Other person as the ground of morality in the vein of Levinas. I think identity politics presupposes Levinasian Kantianism, that's why when we promote the feminine Other we promote diversity. Marxists don't like how I want to ground politics on Levinasian moral phenomenology, but they could use more morality in their lives.
Third, I don't know whether or not the sexual relation exists, but I do argue against Lacan that we can talk about women in universal terms.
 
T

thirdform

pass the sick bucket
malelesbian said:
Marxists don't like how I want to ground politics on Levinasian moral phenomenology, but they could use more morality in their lives.
Click to expand...

This is a contradiction. On one hand you want to argue that western christianity has developed a particular form of phalocentric mastery and we must advocate the intuition of the non-western other, yet you also argue that marxists as secular intellectuals require more western Christianity. This is a kind of thoroughgoing orientalism.
 
T

thirdform

pass the sick bucket
De Sade was right to note that the more laws there are (I.E: moral precepts) the greater initiative towards crime.

The problem is De Sade gets trapped in the Kantian problematic, that is to say, he foregrounds the autonomy of beauty and aesthetic judgment, but merely through its inversion. Good Marxists are far beyond this. For us aesthetics never possess an existence separate from economics and politics. If that were so, we would have to take the idea of the historical Criminal to its ultimate limit, where all men as villains would have to be hung by women, only for women to hang each other for phalocentrism, until the last woman hangs herself.

And in fact, this is why identity politics is becoming less and less relevant for the black, brown and queer/trans people it purports to speak for. Because it reduces everything to moral hierarchy. Your project might have carried more weight in 2011.
 
T

thirdform

pass the sick bucket
it is also why De Sade is awed by natural destruction, in the same way that Kant is awed by the divine. Inversion, not sublimation.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top