The point is despite certain fixed themes and traits or stabilised hormonal states and behaviours …masculinity is also nebulous, insecure, ambiguous. Which is why it has to be continuously redefined and defended and differs across cultures and time and all that. So it’s shaky ground to start on yeah
i dont think it can be done. you can't remove the pain of being hideously ugly and having no social skills. it's unfair that some people are hideous to look at and unpleasant to talk to. no wonder they're upset.
How do you recommend I refine my arguments? Eventually I want to write a dissertation on male femininity and Butler, so I'm all ears. (I have an MA, not a PhD.)Im not saying it doesn’t make sense when you say feminine and masculine that’s the other end of stupidity ! im just saying it’s shaky ground full of boring baggage so you need to refine your arguments
Are you saying that anti-capitalism and feminism aren't worthwhile endeavors then? Are you saying there's no alternative to the dominant mainstream culture?i dont know what it means to take your anger out on 'capitalism' and the 'patriarchy'. they're not like people you can chuck in a hole full of spikes. they're abstract concepts. and ive never come across anyone that can define the former at all.
But you can also see things where those broad forces were concentrated eg women’s suffrage or the Irish famine. And to come back to my point see that with say suffrage the behaviours to achieve the goals win contrast to accepted feminine behaviours of the time and all thati dont know what it means to take your anger out on 'capitalism' and the 'patriarchy'. they're not like people you can chuck in a hole full of spikes. they're abstract concepts. and ive never come across anyone that can define the former at all.
i dont know what this meansBut you can also see things where those broad forces were concentrated eg women’s suffrage or the Irish famine. And to come back to my point see that with say suffrage the behaviours to achieve the goals win contrast to accepted feminine behaviours of the time and all that
Right but you can't take a goal like stopping men from turning to violent terrorism and achieve that goal by terroristic means.you can take a specific goal, like universal sufferage or the reunification of ireland and engage in profitable terrorism to acheive it. thats useful and often works.
The term is cisgendered heterosexual sissy. So no drag. Try again. Here's a hint: my idiosyncratic interpretation (or as Butler would say, my attempt at a "resignification") of the word "sissy" means a man who acts feminine while presenting as a man. This is why it's not just about femdom. After all, if I'm the feminine one, why can't I be the femdom?Sissy terrorists would be very entertaining, I think. Drag jihadis!
Patently untrueI'd rather talk about fighting the patriarchy, something few of you seem to be interested in.
I guess we're all just going to continue getting baited, except jenks who has the wisdom to stay away, cos I just can't with this nonsense
People are uninterested in your theory and the very specific and narrow confines within which it demands the patriarchy be fought. To say that people are uninterested in something bc they're not interested in your version of that thing is totally wrong. I get that you spent 10 years or whatever coming with a theory that you unfortunately seem to have invested most of your self-worth in, but it doesn't obligate anyone to agree with you.
And here's why a non-reductionist version fails: you cannot take every instance of human behavior and place it into separate masculine and feminine boxes. OBVIOUSLY there is much behavior which is coded to some greater or lesser degree one or other, but it is a spectrum, not a neatly defined binary (I see @shiels just said basically the same thing).
Your first example was joshi wrestling. When asked why it was inherently "feminine culture" besides that it's womrn wrestling yr answer was basically, if you don't get why that's feminine culture I don't what to tell you.
You're the gender studies scholar, not us, but I have to imagine gender studies is more about analyzing why and how certain behaviors are coded in the ways that they are than sorting them into masculine or feminine boxes and telling anyone who disagrees that they don't care about fighting patriarchy (tho it's academia, so v possibly it is more bitter petty infighting I guess)
Like maybe take a second to reflect on an almost complete failure to sell your thinking to a largely sympathetic audience instead of telling everyone else they're bad and wrong