Monthly Archives: December 2011

wakeuplena:

daaaaw

Sometimes the poor are praised for being thrifty. But to recommend thrift to the poor is both grotesque and insulting. It is like advising a man who is starving to eat less.

Oscar Wilde, The Soul of Man Under Socialism (via lordgarrett)

meangirlsaremean:

“lol” is not an argument, neither is cheap posturing. You feel entitled to be right. You are not.

No, I feel your arguments are by and large ridiculous and stoop even lower than what you accuse me for.  I have no urgency to engage with them just because you demand that I do.  You can phrase that as me feeling entitled to be right but that is not the case. 

And there goes the pompous marxist, ladies and gents. If you disagree with him, he will twist you into a racist. Weak tactic, but it is a favorite of Marxists and Anarchists, BTW.

Let’s go to the video tape. He said: “Why do we need to focus on the oppressor? That’s akin to the “why isn’t there a white pride march when blacks and gays can have one” argument.”

That’s implying that men are equivalent to whites, oppressors, vis-a-vis blacks, but it is supposed to racist to bring up those unequal roles begin with slavery. And because I have the nerve to take the analogy on its face as extended to women, I am a racist. My, intellectual rigor you have!

Analogous not equivalent.  Phoenix made no mention of referring to women’s social position as slaves.  You aren’t making an extension of the analogy, you’re repackaging it to fit something that you wanted to respond to.  Rather than engaging with the point that was made you discounted it as “that race bullshit.”  You appropriate slavery for the sake of making seem absurd the argument of Phoenix.  Your flippant disregard in abusing the term for the purpose of your argument is racist.  The fact you don’t recognise this act as problematic in the slightest is racist.

No, you are entitled to be right, so it’s easier to make a hilariously pathetic attempt to accuse me of racism, or if that fails, accuse me of accusing phoenix of being a racist.

As you would say,

lol

Ok mate.

Right, because women only act in any way female because patriarchal society coerces or brainwashes

brainwashing lol.

them into it. In fact, what you seem to imply is that femininity is false, a contrivance of “cultural norms” where only things expressed in male power terms are legitimate. And women would act just like men if only they were not oppressed by society. That’s the latent misogyny of feminism, an idea that femininity results only from oppression and that feminine women are stupid and brainwashed and should be liberated. Thank you.

Except that’s not the point I was making at all.  In fact weirdly enough it’s the point that you were making every time you called Phoenix “Dickless phony self-hating sensitive male” or something to that effect.

If I’d been going in that direction the point I would have been making is that gender binary in itself is damaging.  The establishment of traits as being masculine and feminine, coupled with the preference towards masculine traits as being dominant and powerful whilst feminine traits (dickless, sensitive?  Your words, not mine) being negative is something that we should be working away from.  If women weren’t oppressed by society they wouldn’t “act just like men”; they would act however they damn well pleased irrespective of whether or not you wanted to associate their behaviour as being masculine or feminine.

The tactic was schoolboyish. It is schoolboyish to employ a blatant strawman. You seem very upset

lol

by my argumentation, when “lol” or “appeal to ridicule” seems to be your favorite fallacy.

lol

Ah, when you do it, it is not a logical fallacy, but sarcasm. More of that entitlement.

lol

So, we hear a great deal of feminists upset about CEOs and nothing about them being upset about being miners because?

As I’ve said previously, enclosure of the family, deterministic roles within society and the capitalist hegemony which entrenches bourgeois class interests both as that which has influence over media representation and that which creates the aspirant norms.  

No, it isn’t, but as I just said: “Though feminists make great strides to pretend they are diverse and class conscious, in terms of the vast majority of academic voices and ideas, we are still talking about WASP women who have been and still are the enormous beneficiaries of class oppression and colonial exploitation.”

Yes?  At no point have I disagreed with you at the existence of class and racial privilege within the feminist movement.  That doesn’t make the feminist movement or ideals of feminism bunk, it makes them a product (both in what they say and in what the capitalist system is happy to promote) of their socioeconomic conditions.

Are you suggesting that people on this list are not marginalized within feminism?

No, of course they are.

Are you suggesting that the majority of the people on this list do not at least accept the basic premises of WASP feminism which remains institutionalized in academia?

White feminism does dominate in institutionalised academia however the list is full of people who are both accepted within academia and indeed academics themselves.  Their voices are there, it’s not their fault you won’t listen to them.

Are you suggesting that even a minority of these authors are as concerned about putting women to work in mines as in the boardrooms as CEOs, that is, glamorous jobs dominated by men vs. dirty, dangerous, but necessary jobs dominated by men?

You mean does their argument specifically match the argument you want them to be making for you to consider them to be legitimate?  Fuck off.

in terms of the vast majority of academic voices and ideas, we are still talking about WASP women

The original quote made an absolute statement about the entirety of feminism.  Phoenix disagreed and said there was another story to it.  Now you want to reformat the original point that the discussion stems from so that it fits into a less absolute pattern so that you can uphold your argument?

Yes, the whiteness does dominate in feminism as it dominates the rest of society.  I fail to see how in any of your arguments you’re providing some renaissance in the way we approach race relations, when it’s pointed out that there are strong voices from women of colour within feminism you discount them and go back to talking about the academic or the media representation.

Could Phoenix have phrased it better instead of saying “true feminism” something more along the lines of “feminism isn’t so black and white and there are many different voices within it …”?  Yes.  But for someone who throws out the logical fallacy accusation you sure do strawman like a champ.

“Feminism doesn’t do this! They are all wrong”

“Yah but you’re talking about only one interpretation of it”

“Yeah but most of feminism doesn’t do this so they’re still all wrong!”

The problem isn’t my education, it is your religious adherence to dogma.

lol

No, the question is sound. What if, whenever debating nationalism and did I not like that the idea that is it is racist, all I would do is say, well nationalism isn’t monolithic, see true nationalism is about freedom, (cite a list of anarcho-capitalists) and all nations and peoples can be free. You would “lol” me, but you regard that sort of thing as legitimate when talking of feminism. Just pick a voice, and imply it is more representative.

I’d still say nationalism is racist (or at least xenophobic and pandering to capitalism) because I’m an internationalist Marxist.  I don’t think a solid “anarcho-capitalist” would support nationalism and it’s definitely not those guys you’d go to when looking at arguments about nationalism and freedom.  Not unless you have a really corrupt understanding of the development of nationalist theory (I suggest you start with Rousseau).

Did I say their voices are more representative?  No, I said their voices are present.  Feminism is not the homogenised mass the initial quote portrays it as.  Your question is not sound because you expect me to make a claim on behalf of the feminist movement as a whole, which I won’t pretend to be in a position to do so, and it fundamentally ignores the variety of different approaches to feminism which do not represent the linear focus you paint it to have.

You accuse me of absolutes yet you refuse to listen to voices within the feminist movement that are not necessarily represented by the media as being the powerful important ones.  While the media focusses solely on the interests of the white middle classes your response that someone would say someone else is worthy of note is “do not pick some obscure example of some feminist”.  Since I have pushed the argument that there are, for example, women of colour feminists that also have a good class analysis, you have said you don’t want to hear about them because they aren’t the main media representation, and at the same time have adamantly stated you’re not racist.

lol

lol means “your point is too ridiculous for me to put effort into writing a response because I have no interest in spoon feeding you this shit.” If you think that means you’ve won the point I have only this to say: lol.

meangirlsaremean:

philosophy-of-praxis:

In the interest of space I removed your trenchant, though redundant, “lol”s, but in fairness, I will mention your previous, “Eh?”s, “Wut?”s, and “Huh?”s — the entitled guy’s way of saying, he’s entitled to be right without argument.

You put words in phoenix’ mouth about the slavery analogy, which he had not mentioned and which in itself is a racist argument for you to be bringing up.  I did, in fact, address it in the post by lampshading it and saying if anybody else wanted to talk about it they should feel free to do so, but that I wasn’t going to put a great amount of effort into responding on that matter.  If you want to interpret that as “an entitled guy acting entitled to be right” then feel absolutely free to do so, you’re still either racist or trying to paint phoenix as racist without constructing an argument around it.  On neither of those counts am I going to humour you with civility especially when you have no intention of demonstrating it.

Right, but not because they’re allowed to be independent and allowed personal agency.  Instead it’s quite the reverse: because they’re denied agency the trade off to give a false semblance of privilege comes from this notion of chivalry.

BULL SHIT. Women gladly accept chivalry and all its benefits, wherever you find them. They desire it, write about it, fantasize about it. Your thesis paper women don’t, it’s true. Nobody forces multi-millions of girls to jam theaters for Twilight. A man didn’t write that shit or make those movies, women did. It is a wholesale rejection of your bullshit academic idea that women want to be just like men, have the roles of men and reject chivalry. BULL SHIT. Women have gladly given men agency to kill others to get them resources, to die in fighting for those resources, to fucking kill spiders — and still do.

Hegemonic patriarchal power paradigms, internalised misogyny, cultural norms, socialisation process … seriously take your innate behaviour bullshit elsewhere.  As for absolutism …

lol

“lol” is not an argument. The point stands.

I’m glad you think that no women have ever done dirty work.  Pretty sure a lot of people would disagree with you on that one.

Strawman tactic: blatant distortion of statement by adding an absolute. The last quoted sentence is connected to the previous sentence, which is speaking “as a whole.” The absolute added by you. (Rather schoolboyish of you.)

Logical fallacy game round two: if you’re going to respond to someone with a tirade of ad hominems you don’t get to call them schoolboyish over one thing.

You have avoided the question.

You didn’t really ask a question.

Feminism is upset about under-representation among CEOs, but not about under-representation of miners, for example.

You seem to have found the question.

Ah, yes, the homogenised mass of feminism, speaking as one voice, all feminists in the same basket.  

So, I am to accept the exception is the rule…because you say so.

Women don’t have individual agency, even in resistance, they must all agree with one another as to what their immediate priorities in liberation are.

No women have agency? Margret Thatcher? (See, I can play that game, too.)

Ah, I see you don’t understand sarcasm.  Nothing to see here, carry on.

Anyway, it is rhetoric. You did not address the point, and it has nothing to do with agency. Again, why are examples of feminists enraged about underrepresentation among CEOs legion, but the same about miners rare?

And please, do not pick some obscure example of some feminist trying to increase the presence of women in mines, and try to make a FALSE EQUIVALENCY to the very popular, widely-stated feminist goal of CEO representation.

Very popular in the media, because the media represents the interests of the white middle classes.  I shouldn’t pick an obscure example of some feminist with different priorities because I have to support your view of feminism homogenised into representing solely the white middle classes?  As if.

So, what you are attempting to say here is well, the feminists concerned about about CEOs are just a representation of the media,

Did I say that?  I didn’t say that.  The media represents as popular the interests of those who a) consume said media and b) control said media.  It is not “just a representation of the media”, it is the reflective interests of those in a socioeconomic position for the media to pay attention to them.

but any examples of noble feminism just as concerned about underrepresentation in dirty jobs like mining, no matter how obscure, are actually representative… because obscure is representative and popular is not, because you are entitled to be correct and that’s the only way you can manage it.

You still haven’t actually asked a coherent, question that isn’t about weighting any possible response so that it’s something you don’t have to work to compute.  Feminism is not a single unit of thought, not all feminists have the exact same focus as to how they want to liberate themselves, I have no interest in playing a game where I pretend that is the case just so that you can run around pretending your smart because of it.

Actually you still haven’t asked a question at all …

And yet, you have attempted but failed to answer it. Though feminists make great strides to pretend they are diverse and class conscious, in terms of the vast majority of academic voices and ideas, we are still talking about WASP women who have been and still are the enormous beneficiaries of class oppression and colonial exploitation. A simple example of this is the crass obsession with women being CEOs, but the quiescent acceptance that the dirtiest, most violent work is majority men and should stay that way.

Again, though, feminism isn’t a homogenised mass.  The media is happy to talk about the interests of middle class, white women but that doesn’t mean that they’re the only people who talk about feminism so take the effort to educate yourself instead of assuming that what you read in a few shitrags is the complete representation of the interests of a diverse group.

Your question is ridiculous because the very basis was flawed.  ”Tell me this, but don’t quote anyone whose response I won’t accept, why do they all think the same, SPEAK FOR ALL WOMEN”

No.

grrrlfoxxx:

dammit spock im a doctor not a rock whisperer

extra-bread:

what you seem to (maybe) implicitly disregard in your treatment of feminism (and your counter to that misguided argument) is that the patriarchy is oppressive in all directions. it genuinely is a form of gender oppression that sent men to war, and kept them on a sinking ship. it’s just that the discourse that oppressed them is, in most cases, overwhelmingly more oppressive against women. don’t you find that gender oppression against men is in some ways more pervasive? people who can see and renounce aspects of the patriarchal discourse which oppress women seem to have a much harder time rejecting ideas of specifically-male obligations. again, not that this is one of the more awful things going on in the world at the moment.

Capitalism sent men to war.  Patriarchy expects women to be submissive, hence the social expectation of acts of chivalry which by nature keep women submissive.  Patriarchy does oppress people who are men, in so much as for them to not fit into the gender-binary as hyper-masculine they are made to suffer for it (for example a denial of men being raped).  But it doesn’t oppress them for being men, it oppresses them for not fitting into patriarchy’s expectations of masculinity and manhood.

meangirlsaremean:

Here we go with the pompous ass and his Marxism,

lol

his tiresome dogma, his pedantry,

lol

his inability to understand anything human

lol

and not contextualized into a neat little box

lol

of the correct way of seeing things that he got from books.

lol

Let me waste my time by explaining this simply: Women have and still do as a whole continue to accept being saved first,

Right, but not because they’re allowed to be independent and allowed personal agency.  Instead it’s quite the reverse: because they’re denied agency the trade off to give a false semblance of privilege comes from this notion of chivalry.

enjoying the goods and the resources that come from colonial exploitation and capitalism.

lol

They just let men do the dirty work and women have always encouraged and supported the wars of men.

I’m glad you think that no women have ever done dirty work.  Pretty sure a lot of people would disagree with you on that one.

You have avoided the question.

You didn’t really ask a question.

Feminism is upset about under-representation among CEOs, but not about under-representation of miners, for example.

Ah, yes, the homogenised mass of feminism, speaking as one voice, all feminists in the same basket.  Women don’t have individual agency, even in resistance, they must all agree with one another as to what their immediate priorities in liberation are.

And please, do not pick some obscure example of some feminist trying to increase the presence of women in mines, and try to make a FALSE EQUIVALENCY to the very popular, widely-stated feminist goal of CEO representation.

Very popular in the media, because the media represents the interests of the white middle classes.  I shouldn’t pick an obscure example of some feminist with different priorities because I have to support your view of feminism homogenised into representing solely the white middle classes?  As if.

You still haven’t actually asked a coherent, question that isn’t about weighting any possible response so that it’s something you don’t have to work to compute.  Feminism is not a single unit of thought, not all feminists have the exact same focus as to how they want to liberate themselves, I have no interest in playing a game where I pretend that is the case just so that you can run around pretending your smart because of it.

Actually you still haven’t asked a question at all …

Fred is God

Friedrich Nietzsche

That’s actually the originally quote.  Nietzsche wasn’t a nihilist, he was a narcissist.

It got misheard and misspoke so it ended up God is dead, but don’t believe the urban rumours.

“Feminism is the idea that we can make both sexes equal by focusing solely on the issues of one of them.”

The Amazing Atheist (via amazingatheist)
Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. (via phoenixsingerpdx)

Stomping your feet like a child is not an argument, you entitled princess.

(via meangirlsaremean)

First off, I’m a guy and second that quote is just wrong. It has basis in reality. True Feminism is about equality of sexes with one historically being an oppressor. Why do we need to focus on the oppressor? That’s akin to the “why isn’t there a white pride march when blacks and gays can have one” argument. (via phoenixsingerpdx)

meangirlsaremean:

“True feminism.” Right, you are going to tell us what that is. Don’t give me that race bullshit either.

Eh?

You self-hating guys are the worst. Right, women are comparable to slaves.

Wut?

Right, it’s that simple. Ever seen a woman down a coal mine or a sewer? The pretty white princess is a slave compared to a man like that?

Huh?

She sure benefits from his oppression. You know what happens if all men die tomorrow? Civilization completely falls apart and you and your feminist allies will no longer have the internet to bitch and moan, while you are fighting off bugs and disease in the darkness. Educate your pathetic, dickless self. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vp8tToFv-bA&feature=player_embedded

Isn’t interesting that there’s no oppression of women but the insults used to put phoenix down all revolve around portraying him as effeminate?

I mean I’m sure somebody else can deal with better about how offensive the slave analogy is (oh and like there weren’t female slaves?  Phoenix didn’t even mention that you had to put it in his mouth) but this talk about coal mines and sewers just fundamentally lacks class analysis, the women-as-breeders for working classes under capitalism, the enclosure of the family unit to function as the nuclear family to function for the needs of the bourgeoisie.  The capacity to go out and work jobs as an independent woman comes once somebody has enough money to hire a babysitter, which isn’t open to people in the class position where the main have to work in mines or sewers, hence there don’t tend to be the same nature of personal risk involved for low-end jobs for women.  This idea of the disposable man being evidenced by women first into lifeboats when that’s more an apologism for and in itself exemplary of the expectation that women must be weak and passive.  The men have to “let” them into the lifeboats, the women “need” rescuing by the men under this patriarchal social norm, because the women aren’t allowed to be independent or able to take control over their own lives, hence this norm is propagated.

I’m too tired to watch all this video, it’s too mad.

leftlibertarian provides evidence of women in mines.

sonofapritch:

philosophy-of-praxis replied to your post: so much Judith Butler hatred on my dash

I’ve not read Judith Butler but generally like work that makes me read each sentence 3 times before I get my head around what it’s trying to say so I’d probably like it. My post was genuine, not getting in on the hate

Yeah, I wasn’t directing that at you, but several people reblogged it so scrolling through I just saw a bunch of I LOATHE JBUTTZ WRITING STYLESZ OMGZZZZ and had to say something. As someone who likes Gramsci, I figured you’d appreciate something that required a little extra effort. Side note: I do love how in Gramsci there is this strange—beautiful?—exigency to the prose style that you don’t get from people who weren’t, you know, risking their lives writing things. Etc.

Yeah.  I like the bits where he’s getting around the censor so he’ll use a term in a way that may have an ambivalent meaning, yet exploring both of the potentialities creates something new in itself.  I think in many ways that’s something I quite like about language.  I can’t really think of anything offhand but just like, but I enjoy the dualities created.  It’s like writing bibliographies.  If you use the inbuilt thing Word has instead of slaving it out by hand you’re not really masochistic enough to benefit from the end result.

I loathe Judith Butler’s writing style.

ghoulmann:

queerhappy:

Complex and complicated sentence structures and syntax. Quite inaccessible. Sometimes I sense that she’s purposefully trying to be hard to understand. If there’s more than 4 comas (excluding lists) in your sentence, you need to rewrite that shit. 

Unconventional spelling and grammar undermine your authority here. However, good luck on that new style manual. Lots of luck engaging Butler.

I take props from Hobbes and see every sentence as a challenge to see how much punctuation you can fit in before it has to end.

Why it’s racist. In one sentence.

dagseoul:

freebroccoli:

“Every year new groups organize to demand their ‘rights.’ White people who organize and expect the same attention as other groups are quickly and viciously condemned as dangerous bigots. Hispanic, black, and Jewish caucuses can exist in the U.S. Congress, but not a white caucus, demonstrating the absurdity of this approach for achieving rights for everyone.”

Ron Paul (via theworldisconfused)

How is this racist again?

In one sentence: only white people turn discussions about civil rights for historically oppressed people into discussions of universal rights, or “rights for everyone”.

It’s explicitly white supremacist. I don’t expect you to accept what is obscene in Ron Paul’s social philosophy. But that’s why you exist—to defend the indefensible in white power.

Libertarianism is stupid. Ron Paul is a racist. Give up.

White people need a white caucus, because despite already being the majority power both in the legislature and economic power structure, they just don’t get enough time to plot how they want to exert it.

y cant u c this? omg reverse racism

[Marx] considers that notions of ‘individuality’, ‘equality’, ‘private property’, and ‘freedom’ take on very specific meanings in the context of market exchange—meanings that should not be confused with more general ideologies of freedom, individuality, equality and so on. To the degree that these highly specific meanings are universalized in bourgeois notions of constitutionality, we create confusions in thought as well as in practice.

David Harvey, Limits to Capital (via bbcity)

of-praxis:

thejewishhippiewithabeard:

Does anyone else see Zionism as an anti-colonialist national liberation movement and  wonder why people see it as right-wing?

what

because the political project of zionism pre-dates WWII and currently functions to maintain apartheid in palestine

thats why it is ‘right wing’ and not ‘anti-colonist’.

who were zionists (not jews) colonized by that warranted being granted land that people already lived on?

I don’t even know what just happened.

How does a bunch of people going to a place which is a part of an imperial mandate, making a deal with the colonial power, taking land and then being financed by an external world power to maintain dominance in the region, whilst oppressing the people whose family heritage is on that land, a people who are forming their own national identity in resistance to the colonial power and the history of Empires that have oppressed them for centuries …

Come across as anti-colonial national liberation?  It is on every level the absolute opposite.

Link

philosophy-of-praxis:

warofposition:

philosophy-of-praxis:

warofposition replied to your post: Why aren’t you a fan of IR?

interesting. and why exactly do you find it pointless to “differentiate it from politics as a whole”. i understand the issue of…

I’m in a similar situation for lack of time but if you can recommend me any actually good IR texts and authors I’d appreciate it.  The module I took in first year left me fundamentally uninspired so something that can kick life into my understanding can only be a good thing.

in a perfect world: philosophy-of-praxis: warofposition: philosophy-of-praxis:…

bbcity replied to your post: hollovv replied to your post: Again out of a lack…

meh, I’m not sure you can attribute nationalism to Che considering his UN speech anticipating/calling for a civil rights movement in the U.S… youtube.com/watch?v…

I didn’t, I said (though poorly phrased?) that before meeting Che the revolution Castro was organising was nominally nationalist and didn’t have a strong Marxist current to it.

warofposition:

philosophy-of-praxis:

warofposition replied to your post: Why aren’t you a fan of IR?

interesting. and why exactly do you find it pointless to “differentiate it from politics as a whole”. i understand the issue of brevity but i didn’t find this to be a very convincing argument, i’d even say this suffers from a lack of an argument.

A nation’s material relations, the power dynamics present, the socio-cultural realities and the historical process that has lead to this point in time is what intuits the way that states interact.  Fundamentally this cannot be separated out yet it is not the concern of international relations.  This is why things like the democratic peace theory, clash of civilisations and end of history are all so unsurprising and yet completely inadequate.  To really understand international relations it should be a part of politics and for a complete understanding of politics international relations should be considered.  But to only look at international relations is like studying the flame of a candle without looking at the wax or the atmosphere.

If you like it, enjoy it and benefit from it then by all means I’m not going to tell you not to do it.  For me, personally, I couldn’t get along with the way it’s atrophied from broader politics, at least in my university.

except there are a shitload of scholars that do what you put in bold? especially across the pond. there are tons of people heavily influenced by marxism doing IR in europe. i think you should have put, “at least in my university” in your first posts. i go to a top 20 IR program now and i graduated from one of the more highly regarded(top 10) in the country, and with all their resources they don’t have much patience for my take on IR, which happens to follow very closely to what’s been bolded. i’ve complained time and time again(on tumblr) about some of the major theories in IR doing nothing more than excusing atrocious policies with shit like “offensive realism”. 

i’m not going to run away, dismiss it and do nothing more than cry about it tho. i’m currently in grad school to sharpen the tools needed to combat some of the more prevailing theories of the west and put out work that takes the relationship between capital and labor into account. the relationships between states is something definitely worthy of it’s own study, just because you don’t like what some people have come up with, doesn’t change that.

In which case I’m looking forward to seeing your posts on the subject 🙂

Have you ever noticed…

lavender-labia:

That Christian pro-lifers understand how humans developed from this:

But don’t understand how humans developed from this:

We didn’t develop from that, we had a common ancestor.

What is even happening.

thenoobyorker replied to your post: I suppose the other thing I find really…

You sound like an economics major talking about other disciplines in the social sciences

Hahaha!  This is possibly a sign I’ve gone too far then.

I don’t like IR, I’m quite a brusque person about things I dislike, I don’t expect everyone to share my opinion and I don’t (intentionally or consciously) disrespect people for wanting to study IR.

It’s all cool, I’m being playful 🙂