Judith Butler and the new identity politics?

Mr. Tea

Mr. Tea

Let's Talk About Ceps
sus said:
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?
Click to expand...
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.

I concede it's likely that female deities associated with agri- and horticulture outnumber male ones, but if anything this reinforces my point, since this is the domesticated, ordered aspect of fertility, while we were originally talking about nature and wildness, which is well represented by a whole load of male deities - the Lord of Beasts, the Old Man of the Woods, and so on.

Gundestrup-Cauldron-horned-figure.jpg

And the only reason I went down this avenue is to demonstrate the silliness of Peterson's argument about the alleged inherently feminine nature of "chaos."
 
  • Like
Reactions: sus
malelesbian

malelesbian

Femboyism IS feminism.
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.
 
T

thirdform

pass the sick bucket
malelesbian said:
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.
Click to expand...

yes, in the most gracious and courteous way possible, please refrain from adopting the obnoxious parlence of what the younger generation call the cracker, and attempt to ascertain, what is considered to be, a life. Tate is a flash in the pan, he'll be history in 3 years time. noone even remembers Milo Yiannopoulos now after he made a fool out of himself with the ex-gay shtick. Just permit for Tate to collapse under his own contradictions.

Why are you so fixated on Tate, anyway? Seems bizarre to be particularly obsessed with him. Do you feel threatened? no fronting, bro!
 
malelesbian

malelesbian

Femboyism IS feminism.
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.
 
T

thirdform

pass the sick bucket
malelesbian said:
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.
Click to expand...

ok, jolly good! Where you going to channel your white mates into. Skrewdriver?

guardians of anti-racism and safe spaces which aren't even intended for them?

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!

None of these right wing grifters have the foggiest clue of Marxism, which is why they call anything vaguely leftist and social justice inclined neo-marxism. As Lenin said, better fewer, but better. People who at one time have the right positions relating to a certain issue but are committed for the wrong reasons, should be approached with great reserve. In the sense that those wrong commitments will inevitably (if unresolved) lead to deviations.


 
T

thirdform

pass the sick bucket
I can tell you keep yourself up
Hair and nails done
Plus a good job and baby
I can tell you're from a good home
You're a leader
And you're headstrong
You're exclusive
Not many guys can say they trapped that
And I like that
Put your brake onI'm writing you a ticket
With my name on it plus ten digits
Yeah

I'm in your city just for the weekend
Relaxation is all I'm seeking
This walking and talking ain't doing it for me
So baby won't you please turn around andSlow down, I just wanna know ya
Slow down.
 
malelesbian

malelesbian

Femboyism IS feminism.
thirdform said:
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!
Click to expand...

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.
 
T

thirdform

pass the sick bucket
malelesbian said:
You move people away from the manosphere by promoting feminine culture against the patriarchy, phallus, and toxic masculinity.
Click to expand...

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?

malelesbian said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
T

thirdform

pass the sick bucket
Clinamenic said:
Bordigan anarchist OWNED by gender theorist! Unbelievable reaction!

Bordiga FEELS the gender trouble!
Click to expand...

I don't know why you think I'm A) an anarchist. If you'd taken the time to read any Bordiga you would realise he was an ardent Leninist if anything, rather than your dilettantish masturbatory student soup.
and B) why your liberal arts college approach to repartee would sit favourably with me. grow up.
 
T

thirdform

pass the sick bucket
thirdform said:
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.
Click to expand...

furthermore, isn't the main contention of this 'manosphere' that the majority of modern men have in essence become too feminised? How does not this merely play into their hands? It is almost as if you want to establish a reciprocal antagonism of reenforcement. The more you rail against them, the more their position becomes emboldened, and the more you double down.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top