>BOO HOO HOO WE HAVE TO SLEEP WITH MEN WE'RE NOT ATTRACTED

>>8671226
yes of course

>>8671226
Which is funny because she looked like a pug

>>8671233
like what

>>8671226
>BOO HOO IM OBJECTIFIED BETTER GO OBJECTIFY SOME UNDERAGE GIRLS

>>8671237
like the category of "woman" being an ideological mythology that doesn't reduce to biology and/or psychology.

>>8671226
>reading feminist lit
Blame yourself.

>>8671258
I have no idea what you're trying to say.

File: houellebecq2.jpg (13KB, 220x293px) Image search: [Google]

13KB, 220x293px

>>8671258

>>8671258
i definitely didn't miss that because that's retarded

>>8671275
Gender is a social construct

File: 1.jpg (32KB, 295x475px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 295x475px

Yeah, a lot.

>>8671283
what isn't a social construct

does that mean that anything that isn't a social construct is wrong

>>8671283
top fucking kek

>>8671283
So is language.

That doesn't justify her being a chomo

>>8671283
>>8671283
And so what? Human rights are also a social construction.
Social constructions aren't inherently bad bro.

>>8671258
so basically it relies Sartrean voodoo (he was a man fyi) and if Sartre is wrong, then the whole thing is garbage.

>>8671260
>>8671275
what is a woman my friends?

>>8671292
the fuck?
a social construct is something contingent related to the culture, so dependent on historical reasons.
>does that mean that anything that isn't a social construct is wrong
u are amazing

>>8671283
That it is. You know what else it is? Extremely unsurprising and common to everyone, not just "women".

Freaking identity politics turning every little stubbed toe into history's greatest tragedy and a massive conspiracy by them against the special snowflake we.

>>8671302
mein Gott nobody said that social constructs where bad
in any case the asymmetry that generates certain social constructs are the problem
you need to go full queer in order to say that gender itself is a bad thing
and if u have this problems understanding first wave feminism, don't even try

>>8671320
third wave feminism killed identity politics
go read Butler mein gott
queer theory
anybody read books?

>>8671312
>what is a woman my friends?
it isn't "an ideological mythology that doesn't reduce to biology and/or psychology." unless that's just a really dumb way of saying the concept of woman doesn't exist
>a social construct is something contingent related to the culture, so dependent on historical reasons.
does this parse for anyone else
>u are amazing
maybe you just have some kind of space brain but i have no idea what you're on about you obscurantist
>>8671322
>>8671328
>queer theory
so the answer to my thread is no i didn't miss ANYTHING, thanks

>>8671283
Guaranteed replies

>>8671322
>in any case the asymmetry that generates certain social constructs are the problem
explain

>>8671341
>muh oppression
Literally obscurantism 101, learn to read.

>>8671334
But the concept of woman EXIST since it is inscribed in the bodies of some "individuals", and therefore not inscribed in others
don't misread Butler
not everything is a social construct (how social constructs are imposed, for example, are not)
i am not saying that Beauvoir doesn't have big gaps in her theory, but c'mon, women were considered beasts at their time, just her development of the concept of woman is worth reading for historical reasons

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x_fBYROA7Hk

>>8671350
what is the butlerian response to gender dysphoria?

what is the point in taking hormones and mutilating your genitals when you can just be your queer self?

>>8671350
>But the concept of woman EXIST since it is inscribed in the bodies of some "individuals", and therefore not inscribed in others
doesn't parse
>how social constructs are imposed are not social constructs
explain
>women were considered beasts at their time
they are beasts

>>8671341
http://www.ehow.com/info_8688449_asymmetrical-social-relationship.html

>>8671354
>gender dysphoria
go back to Saint Foucault, you are not prepared yet to Queen Butler.

(you are using a pathologizing discourse in order to refer to some social practices. trans people are more than one person wanting to be of the other gender: in fact, this kind of reasoning still in the binary framework. If you are interested in the topic. I recommend to you Paul B. Preciado (former knew as Beatriz Preciado). some kind of trans Butler )

>>8671355
>explain

they are outside the possible discourse (repressed) so they can not be social constructed. they are outside the language/Law.

I am not responding to anything else of your post because either u are trolling, or a stemfag or a really sad person

good luck man, in 30 years you are going to be living in a world that u will not be able to understand (if u have not killed urself)

>>8671226
lol wat

plenty of BBC around to choose from

>>8671374
>they are outside the possible discourse (repressed) so they can not be social constructed. they are outside the language/Law.
doesn't parse
>good luck man, in 30 years you are going to be living in a world that u will not be able to understand (if u have not killed urself)
>he thinks his gay white people shit has any serious traction
we'll start stoning you faggots and women again within 30 years

>>8671386
uf a mudslime
[the problematic intensifies]

>>8671386
by the way I recommend to you Pornoburka by Brigitte Vasallo!

>>8671368
>trans people are more than one person wanting to be of the other gender.
behind all the buzzwords. is just that.
why somebody put so much effort in bring down such a concept like gender?. self interest.
gender is a lie . every concept of the fucking world is a lie. i mean, what is so much deep about?.

>>8671393
>>8671396
>gay white people shit
it's not even a muslim thing you're just an easy target when things go to shit

File: 1474227294511.jpg (53KB, 960x912px) Image search: [Google]

53KB, 960x912px

>>8671368
>Saint

>>8671322
First-wave feminism was nothing but bitching about how men won't let them get jobs instead of capitalism, and shaming men for wanting younger girls instead of old '''''''''interesting'''''''' hags.
>>8671350
Beauvoir is a massive hypocrite.

>>8671398
Because behind that concept/lie there is a lot of suffering and inequality. If you don't understand why for certain groups of people it is that important, you have a really bad grasp of subjective experience.
Following your reasoning, every dissertation/theory/essay follows that.
Maybe u are some STFU guy (Wittgenstein, Lao Tze, Confucius...) but it is such a easy standpoint when the languages games doesn't make actually ur life a lot more complicated.

>>8671405
You clearly don't have any idea of social practices of the upper-classes.

Whatever, I don't even want to imagine to what kind of suburban plebs I am talking with.

>>8671418
i'd rather be a pleb than a faggot

>>8671431
it's somehow related, babe :*

>>8671434
faggot...

>>8671417
the fact is that language games make life more complicated to everyone. when you want to free a little concept alone (gender) like was the most fucking and disgusting mental mistake on earth, seem childish to me.
i mean, you dont really care about the "lie" behind the concepts, you just wanna be perceived like "normal" when you trans.
it´s true, if you really think the gender is a false concept you dont put that effort in being anyone.

>>8671449
can u read spanish?

>>8671444
trips of truth

>>8671302
No one said anything about being bad, just that its pretend

>>8671303
It's not voodoo. A woman could hypothetically reject whatever she is naturally compelled to do and live her life pretending to be a cat because she has a brain and is therefore condemned to freedom like the rest of us.

Same for anyone really: at any moment you can do absolutely anything. Saying "oh I'm just a woman, I can't do that" is cowardly, and likewise when you say this to someone else you reduce what you see of the individual's infinite possibility to stereotypes and statistics. When this possibility-denying seeps into legislation and law-making you can understand why the first two waves of feminism were largely on the mark.

>>8671302

Human rights are more grounded in objective reality than pink dresses and shiny earrings I would without thinking state but hardly attempt to argue

>>8671585
>there is objective reality
top kek

>>8671628
Just because subjectivity cannot perfectly know objective reality does... mean that at least one subject can scoff at the notion that reality equals itself

>>8671651
Fuck off ESL.

File: nice.jpg (25KB, 479x380px) Image search: [Google]

25KB, 479x380px

>>8671569
I hope I get a good one!

>>8671658
>Fuck off ESL

What did they mean by this?

>>8671449
Don't confound being "normal" and not being "pathologized".

>>8671798
lrn2english

>>8671569
plz kek

File: comfy pepe.gif (100KB, 500x500px) Image search: [Google]

100KB, 500x500px

>>8673262
Holy fucking shit it worked

>>8671226
I bought a second-hand copy of this version of The Second Sex online, not knowing it was just "extracts". It's literally one chapter from the book and over 50% introduction/notes from editor/whatever.

>>8671412
That's second wave feminism. First wave feminism was about legal emancipation. They wanted the right to vote and for equality in marriage and inheritance laws.

>>8671258
This is like saying
>alcohol is heavily understood and conceived of through culture
>therefore "alcohol" is just an ideological mythology

>>8673340
It's not like saying that at all. Alcohol is an actual thing. Gender is an idea.

>>8673366

One has pee pee, other has vagoo. It's not an "idea" it's literally biology.

I don't get what the argument is considering that actual cases of hermaphroditism are extremely rare. I like traps as much as the next man but let's be honest, traps and their liberal "allies" are completely bonkers.

>>8673262
damn bro. you made it

>>8673366
"Alcohol" isn't an idea? And a word?

>>8673380
Gender is not the same thing as sex.

>>8673380
That's not gender, that's sex - which you're correct in saying is very real and important, but gender is more complex; it includes non-physical things (psychology, cultural norms for how each sex behaves, broadly the "ideology" of being male or female) as well as the simple existence of the biological organs.

Also, what's your actual objection to a person of one sex, who decides they'd prefer to be the other, surgically altering themselves to be so? I don't see why that's not feasible.

>>8673405
The vast majority of gender norms are born out of sexual differences. Why is this so hard for you?

>>8673401
Alcohol is a real thing. It can be physically interacted with. I don't see what's so hard to understand about this.

>>8673414
I think you underestimate the power of social influence on gender. Any look into anthropology shows just how very different women have been throughout mankind's history. Also the fact that they are related does not make them the same.

>>8673419
Gender is a real thing, it involves hormones, genitals and chromosomes.

>but gender isn't the same as sex!
This is similar to dichotomizing "booze" and "alcohol," and saying, "Drinking alcohol does not make alcohol booze, because you can drink it with different cultural signifies than booze has." It's just splitting hairs.

>>8673424
And guess what: alcohol has had all sorts of different significations in history and culture too.

>>8673428
Booze and alcohol are two names for the same thing. The exact same thing I said for alcohol applies to booze. They don't have a relationship to each-other, they are the same thing.

>>8673414
Because that's only partially true - some things, like ideas relating to motherhood, have obvious sexual and evolutionary reasons, but there are (or were) also many norms about what type of clothing each sex should wear, how they should behave in social situations, the old idea of "a suitable occupation for a lady" - little of that is biological, or related to anything strictly real.

>>8673428
>>8673430
A more apt parallel would be the term "alcohol" vs the term "all sorts of different significations in history and culture relating to alcohol"; that's essentially what's meant by "gender" (at least in this context).

>>8673434
"Booze" is a culturally charged word. Surely you agree that alcohol has a ton of cultural connotations and can be signified in radically different ways? And can signify radically different things? From being in a champagne glass, to a communion chalice, to a paper bag. It can evoke sophistication and class, or the dregs of society. It can evoke sinful dissipation, or mystical union with the divine.

>>8673405

Every human society that has ever existed has had gender roles. If the two sexes were interchangeable gender norms would not be part of our history. Women's bodies influence their thinking, emotions, and place in society, and the same is true for men.

>Also, what's your actual objection to a person of one sex, who decides they'd prefer to be the other, surgically altering themselves to be so? I don't see why that's not feasible.

They can do whatever they want with their own money and their own bodies. I only object to government funded hormone treatments or surgeries. They don't shell out for boobjobs and facelifts after all.

Plus, wanting a different body is sexist because gender isn't real lmao. Why do you need mones to be a woman? Just try to identify harder!

>>8673437
And all these expressions of alcohol, are still expressions of alcohol. The female gender is a way of expressing the female sex. Sometimes this gendered expression can be abstractly detached, but so can alcohol: Nietzsche loathed actual alcohol, but exalted the "Dionysian". But if you tried to completely separate the "Dionysian" from alcohol, you'd be drastically perverting things.

>>8673440
The connotations are different but they refer to the same thing. Gender and sex do not refer to the same thing though they are related.

>>8673448
Sex describes physical things. In this way it's use is like alcohol. Gender is the socially constructed idea about what it means to belong to a sex. What sex is to alcohol gender is to, for example, drinking etiquette. Drinking etiquette is related to alcohol but not the same thing.

Alcohol describes an actual thing. Drinking etiquette describes social attitudes related to that thing. Sex is an actual thing. Gender describes social expectations of what it means to belong to a sex.

>>8673444
>If the two sexes were interchangeable
The reason I emphasized transgender people is because they're doing exactly this; unlike "every human society that has ever existed", it's now possible for one sex to become the other, or combine elements of both (and this will only get easier as surgical tech advances - there are SF stories about it). The idea of gender may lose a lot of its usefulness as biological sex becomes customizable.

>Women's bodies influence their thinking, emotions, and place in society
One of these things is not like the others. The effect of sexual hormones on the brain, which causes thinking and emotions, is obviously different in males and females, but place in society is not biologically based; it's set up according to learned norms and traditions (ideology).

>>8673466
There is a ton of socially constructed ideas about alcohol. It's one thing to point out that they're socially constructed; it's quite another to say they should be totally detached from alcohol, and should be freely used to signify things like water or Kool-Aid. Our very words are signifiers of something other than the words themselves, your perspective is akin to saying, "A word should only signify the word and not what the word is used to signify."

>>8673473

>and this will only get easier as surgical tech advances - there are SF stories about it

Literally artificial my dude. And no, a transexual does not really become his or her desired sex. That Danish man, for example, they tried to give him a womb and it killed him, it's like Frankenstein's monster.

>but place in society is not biologically based

Women are physically smaller and weaker than men, a lot weaker in fact. What's more, they're out of commission for up to a week a month. My ex got bad cramps, she had to take days off to writhe in bed and be miserable. That's why my ex would have stayed at home rearing children and spinning cloth while I would have worked in the fields or in the mines. Division of labour. Why do you think 99.9% of soldiers are male? Because we literally evolved to fight and kill other males. Our fists are stronger, our faces bonier, our voices deeper and scarier.

When science advances to the point where we can make a perfect trap, I'm going to have myself teleported back to the neolithic and just fight and screw all day, it'll be great.

>>8673491
"Will get easier", not "is currently perfect" - after all, there were many failed attempts at a heart transplant before Barnard.

Soldiery and heavy labour is a good example of something determined by sex, though, and I would argue points out the difference between it and gender - sex is "hardware", things like that which physically exist, while gender is "software", ideas about sex that can change over time. I don't think Beauvoir (we've strayed way off her) was arguing against the existence of sexual differences, only saying they shouldn't result in the idea of one sex being superior to the other or having a dominant position in society. (Also, technology has an important role here - most people don't work in a mine or a field, and even warfare is moving away from physical strength in favor of guided missiles and drone aircraft).

Sometimes I worry that women really are mentally inferior, and that my one chance to experience life won't really be a full experience because I'm not a man.

File: cringe.png (42KB, 399x322px) Image search: [Google]

42KB, 399x322px

>All this tumblr ITT

>>8673521

You have so much faith in technology. Have you ever had a power outage? How well does your computer work with no electricity? In human beings there is no difference between "the hardware" and the "software." We are our bodies, and the brain is a part of that physical body just like our arms and legs and genital organs.

>most people don't work in a mine or a field, and even warfare is moving away from physical strength

It's like you've never left the suburbs. Banks's Culture is a long, long, way off for people who aren't fortunate enough to live in the modern West. The vast majority of fighting is done with weapons designed in the 1940s, and the vast majority of work is done with hands and strong backs. You have no idea how the world works because you spend all day reading Beuavoir and Butler and Foucault and never think to look out the fucking window. You talk about ideology when you're the most indoctrinated ideologue in the coffee-shop.

Google "farming in India" and tell me about the advanced futuristic technology you see there, in the second most populous country on earth. How about "coal mining in China." How do think a woman who can't even lift her own body weight would do in a coal mine?

>>8673530

Different != worse

>>8673556
>In human beings there is no difference between "the hardware" and the "software."
Like I said, the software is literally ideas - if you don't like the term "ideology", it can also be described as "memes" in the original Dawkins/Blackmore sense, but the fact remains that cultural concepts aren't based in physically real things. That's all it means.

>The vast majority of fighting is done with weapons designed in the 1940s
Most of which (rifles, mortars, etc) don't rely on physical strength so much as accuracy, speed etc, which aren't gender based.

>the vast majority of work is done with hands and strong backs
Simply not true; developing economies like India and China by definition aren't at the forefront of tech or representative of the world's trajectory as a whole, but even they're advancing dramatically to catch up with the First World (which is why the West is so anxious about China in particular). We're talking about people who mass-produce iPhones.

>It's like you've never left the suburbs
>the most indoctrinated ideologue in the coffee-shop
Up till now, I was actually impressed that you weren't using caricatures in place of arguments

>>8673554
Tumblr would just scream "offensive" and retreat to a safe space

>>8673586

>Up till now, I was actually impressed that you weren't using caricatures in place of arguments

This is generally right though. I have a lot of experience with lefties.

What is it with them and coffee shops?

>>8671226

Friendly reminder that Simone was a sexual predator, pimp and degenerate who would be jailed today

>>8673602
For whatever reason coffee shops have an image of being meeting places for intelligensia (a French thing, maybe?) and they really, really care about projecting that image. Tends to be more your Huffington Post neoliberal though.

I don't want this to become bogged down in semantics more than it already is since I see you taking issue with things that are besides the point.

>>8673476
>There is a ton of socially constructed ideas about alcohol
>about
Exactly my point. They are about alcohol. They are not alcohol. They are not the same thing. Regardless of how you want words surrounding them to function you admit that they are two different things. That is the important thing, not how our words are used to describe these things but that we are talking about two related but separate things.

It is exactly the same with sex and gender. Even if you want to make gender and sex mean the exact same thing that doesn't remove the existence of social attitudes towards sex. It is these social attitudes to which I am talking about. This is gender. You can choose to use the word how you want but the thing to which that word was used is still there.

Gender is the socially constructed ideas about what it means to belong to a sex. It is tautological to say that gender is a social construction. It is impossible to be wrong. To say that gender is not a social construct is to say that drinking culture is not the same.

File: Problem.jpg (310KB, 960x757px) Image search: [Google]

310KB, 960x757px

>>8673609

Yeah, maybe a proper coffee shop on some bourgeois Parisian street. How the fuck did a coffee chain like Starbucks create that impression for itself?

>>8671569
kill this shitty thread pls

>>8671283
The anglo distinction between gender and sex is bullcrap by the way.

There are certain elements that are biologically and psychologically inherent to the female and male gender and that dictate female and male behaviour.

There are some social constructs that tie into that but their influence is rather miniscule.

>>8673620
What is wrong with it?

>>8673402

god FUCKING DAMMIT when will this meme die

>>8673621
>There are some social constructs that tie into that but their influence is rather miniscule.
>[citation needed]

That's an enormous claim you just made. If it really is true you should be able to point to a vast majority of anthropologists who agree with you. Can you?

Why do all women secretly long to cuck their partners? Is it something inherit in the female psyche to secure a stable, reliable mate and then get impregnated behind his back by an alpha, and afterwards let the first guy provide for her and child?

>>8673626
Because women wearing skirts is obviously genetic right. I mean there's no social attitudes towards that one at all.

File: you sure about that.png (30KB, 547x603px) Image search: [Google]

30KB, 547x603px

>Still drawing a distinction between sex and gender

This is a recent and politically motivated phenomenon. Do not legitimise it.

>>8673631

Next they'll be saying race is a social construct.

Protip: your heredity is NOT a social construct, it's an empirical fact

>>8673586

>cultural concepts aren't based in physically real things

Of course they are. We didn't dream these up for fun, they're based on the physical reality of being a homo sapiens sapiens.

>don't rely on physical strength so much

Lmao dude how much do think a mortar and its ammunition weigh? Try humping that around for week in a place with no gatorade or protein shakes or foamrolls. Do you think they can just stop the battle for the women to bleed and cramp? What does a woman soldier do on a forced march if she's having a "heavy" day? Even in civilian life most tradesmen are in fact men. Hauling heavy shit around and doing physical work is a lot harder if you're female. I see women at the gym struggling to lift barbells that would be a warmup for me, and I'm by no means exceptional.

>Simply not true

The average human being is still a peasant or a laborer, even in your vaunted China. Your mistake is assuming that the world's trajectory is heading "forward" to progress and utopia. Our way of life has always been one of sweat and toil, and we're not going to have time for gender trouble in the days ahead.

>>8673627
Meh. Just watch this documentary instead and look how autistic gender theorists are when faced with inconvenient evidence. There are an ample amount of scientists and scholars in this vid so you should be just fine

https://youtu.be/p5LRdW8xw70

>>8673630

>he thinks skirts descended out of thin air

herp derp I wonder what the aesthetic experience of clothing could possibly have to do with genetics. Oh right, these things called bodies.

>>8673626
>>8673631
>>8673634
There's already been some arguments for it ITT, what's your argument against?

the left is more gender essentialist than the right

>>8673639

>>8673631 is my argument against it. The distinction is politically motivated, as opposed to real/legitimate.

>>8671292
>>8671297
>>8671302
>>8671320
The dumbest people in the thread. You could not have missed the point by a wider margin.

>>8673621
Spurious claim at best.

>>8673636
>using a youtube documentary as your evidence
Opinion safely discarded.

>>8673642
Where's the evidence to back up that claim?

>>8673639

That the definition of race has been changed for purposes of academic and political expediency.

Race used to mean something roughly synonymous to heredity. It stood for a group of people sharing common ancestry (today we would say genetics). But in the 20th century, the definition of race as an empirical category was changed into something else, namely a social construct with broad, sweeping categories that are superficial and, from the standpoint of actual heredity, grossly generalized. Whence: white, black, hispanic, asian, etc. These categories mean next to nothing. They are enormously broad categories designed to simplify the difference between groups and foster us-versus-them mentalities. You cannot deny the political expediency of being able to put huge segments of the population into neat little boxes with very vague definitions and appeal to them in turn as your needs demand.

I still think of race in the traditional, correct sense of those who share clearly distinguishable heredity.

>>8673646
>i don't like it so it's spurious
Wow, you're really fast at watching the entire thing. You must be some sort of intellectual giant to inform yourself so quickly. Congratulations. Fuck off pseud. Go back to your college safe space.

>>8671269

Houellebecq would fucking agree.

>>8673653
So, local genetic differences, as opposed to broad categories (i.e. you'd consider Chinese, Japanese and Korean separate races rather than just "Asian")? There might be something in that.

>>8673649
>documentaries are not a valid medium for information if they are uploaded to youtube
Nice spooks, my property.

>>8673653

This in turn has enabled the whole gamut of identity politics, with wild, baseless accusations of 'racism' becoming a de rigueur tactic for any group that feels marginalized by another or by society as a whole.

Take the concept of privilege. In contemporary sociology, this refers to a set of unearned advantages that certain groups (usually whites and males) possess simply by virtue of possessing a certain identity (e.g. white, male, heterosexual, etc). It is then argued that privilege for one group can only exist where there is also oppression of another group: privilege and oppression entail one another like a hill entails a valley. Accordingly, if privilege is tied to the very possession of a certain identity, than the very existence of that identity (and the group associated therewith) is ipso facto proof of oppression. The end result is that certain groups (again, usually whites and males) impose oppression on other groups (non-whites and females) simply by existing: so long as they exist, the claim of oppression (and its corollaries, bigotry, prejudice, malfeasance, exploitation etc) remains valid. One does not need to be especially bright to grasp the intellectual and political utility of this proposition.

>>8673649
Don't devalue it solely because it's uploaded to youtube. It's a great series and it introduces to the public how ridiculous social science has been.

>Shortly afterward, the Nordic Council of Ministers closed down the Nordic Gender Institute, though it was unclear whether the series had influenced their decision.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hjernevask

>>8673636
>>8673646
>>8673649
Not him but that documentary was produced here in Denmark for the public broadcasting service and it had a huge social impact. Definitely worth watching.

>>8671569
im suicidal

>>8673637
Then how come men wear skirts in many societies?

>>8673676
Can you link any peer viewed papers? As I said there would be a mountain of reputable sources you could cite if what you say is true so it should be easy.

>>8671569
witness

>>8673686

Because all men secretly want to be sexy women

>>8671226
What do feminists say about Rihanna and her new song? As a man I feel like I know what it feels like to be raped now. It's almost worse than death and it makes you want to kill yourself. Not cool, Rihanna. Not cool.

>>8673692
I don't know what you're talking about, that was the first reply I made in this thread. Still I encourage you to watch the video if you're looking for some peer reviewed paper. I believe the video mentioned a few of them.

>>8673692
Literally watch the video. The international assortment of scientists there are not talking out of their asses but actually mention their studies.

>>8673649
I watched the first five minutes and nothing insightful happens. Can someone give me a tldr because I'm not wasting 40 minutes of my time to watch something with no guarantee of it expressing ideas that are accepted in academia. Almost all documentaries are trash that distort or lie.

>>8673717
>Almost all documentaries are trash that distort or lie.
That can be said about any medium including tv, websites, newspapers, games, books and peer reviewed papers.

>>8673717
You could just skip to the part where the scientists talk and look for their names on google.

>>8673722
You cannot even begin to compare peer reviewed papers with documentaries. Documentaries are for entertainment first, and have nothing in place to prevent them from saying whatever they want, using misleading footage etc. A peer reviewed paper is going to be written by a PhD for other PhDs in a format in which these other experts can respond publicly for everyone to see.

>>8671283
so is the moon, if you agree that existence precedes essence, there is no "moon-ness", the moon is just a collection of particular individual shit that we label the moon
does that mean that label is meaningless or not useful?

>>8673729
I watched a couple and nothing gets said that is relevant. Sex informs gender, that does not make them the same thing. The video seems to take a ridiculous straw-man. The couple of people I watched him interview don't do anything to dispute the separation of gender and sex. He just thinks they do because he doesn't know what gender is.

>>8673735
Yes the word moon is a social construct but it still attempts to refer to something that actually has existence. Gender is not a thing that's out there to be seen or experienced. It is a concept, not a tangible thing.

>>8673747
Wasn't the word gender coined to refer to things that are seen or experienced? That being, the way society deals with sex. The problem is that it seems by emphasisng the distinction, ideologues have then tried to completely disassociate them, to the point where gender can (or should) exist independent of sex. By giving it its own name its been given its own power and value, and now all innate human sexual dimorphism is muddled along into this weird social bullshit.

>>8671334

just so everyone in this thread is clear, the anon's response to arguments that challenge his ideology is either asking if it "parses" for "anyone else," an empty appeal to groupthink which only reveals his own weak grasp of english, or dismissing the argument on the basis of its associate with people who don't experience a binary sexuality such as he experiences his own. so already without even getting into the nitty gritty of the matter, it's pretty clear that he has no idea what he's talking about.

>>8673751
Social attitudes are not a thing. They can be observed but they are not an object. Gender is not an object, it is an idea.

>The problem is that...
Just because you don't like what people have done in the name of something does not invalidate it.

>>8673757
>Social attitudes are not a thing
What is this? Are you saying that if something is not material or not empirically observable, it is nonexistent? Ideas are "things"

>>8673763
I meant it is not an object.

>>8673747
nah

>>8673428

sorry but an arbitrarily constructed analogy is "not an argument," as you people are so fond of noticing

>>8673764
So? What's the point?

>>8673764

actually it's an object petit a

>>8671334
Are you actually stupid?

>>8673771
To show why >>8673735's analogy doesn't work.

>>8673665
>>8673676
>>8673678
You took the incorrect thrust from my post. I don't care that it's on youtube, I do care that it's a documentary, and therefore is putting forward a biased view. You cannot make an objective documentary, because by definition a documentary must have a narrative structure, it must have a viewpoint, and it must espouse a certain point of view. Even if it doesn't come right out and say: "This is right and this is wrong" it still makes these selections through framing, editing and choice of content.

If you allow a documentary to shape your point of view you're allowing yourself to be manipulated, and that's cool if it's your thing, but don't try and bring it into logical discourse as if it were valid.

>>8673779

>I don't care that it's on youtube, I do care that it's a documentary, and therefore is putting forward a biased view. You cannot make an objective documentary, because by definition a documentary must have a narrative structure, it must have a viewpoint, and it must espouse a certain point of view. Even if it doesn't come right out and say: "This is right and this is wrong" it still makes these selections through framing, editing and choice of content.

You've just described books/etc as well, bro.

You're going to have to grow up and recognize that there is bias in everything. Even Reuters/etc.

>>8673785
>bias in everything
That doesn't mean all mediums are equally untrustworthy. Peer reviewed journals > documentaries.

>>8673675

but if the forms of oppression diagnosed are too dear for you to part with, if making women uncomfortable with the knowledge that what you are doing makes them uncomfortable is something you cannot part with, then you must either disavow the credibility of the reported experience of women, which is oppressive, or acknowledge your role in an oppressive apparatus, at which point continuing to serve that role would also be oppressive.

>>8671258
really agitates your neutronos.

>>8673686

It's easy to take on and off, hike up, or squeeze dry. The Scots wore them because they were always wading around in swamps on their way to murder other Scots or perhaps the English.

>>8673717
>>8673732

>no guarantee of it expressing ideas that are accepted in academia. Almost all documentaries are trash that distort or lie.

I think you're actually mentally ill. Here are some peer reviewed papers by real PhDs in real gender studies departments at publicly funded universities in the US:

https://twitter.com/realpeerreview

As you can see, publishing a paper in an academic journal means sweet fuck all as far as the truth is concerned.

>>8673838
I never said that everything posted to peer reviewed journals are good. Only that the bar for entry is higher (PhD) which means the person is actually educated in the field they are talking about, the things they say can be fact checked against other peer reviewed works and that other people with PhDs can critique it with all of these happening in an open and transparent environment.

>>8673838
Almost everything in that link has nothing to do with peer review. The couple of things that do it is easy to see are swamped with academic criticisms.

>>8673845

You strongly implied that you only entertain ideas that are "accepted in academia."

Is your whole life devoted to avoiding cognitive dissonance?

>>8673861
>You strongly implied that you only entertain ideas that are "accepted in academia."
Not him, but that's a higher standard than some random, opinionated people on the Internet.

>>8673794
>credibility
Not him, but is questioning someone's interpretation of their experience necessarily questioning their honesty? Also, should questioning someone's honesty always be considered oppression or under what circumstances?

File: 25edb98ca90a7893d130516d33f97eea.jpg (27KB, 350x275px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 350x275px

>>8673861
The things that take place in academia are really, really, really complicated and it's complicated all the way. You can have people who devote themselves to the arguing the smallest minutiae of a branch of a topic. To learn of a topic is to learn how little you know and that feeling never goes away.

To ignore some academic consensus is to announce that you are either a super genius, one of the smartest men alive and probably one of the smartest who ever lived, or that everyone is stupid except for you, which I suppose amount to the same thing. Either way what you are really saying is I'm an idiot who is so stupid I don't even realise I'm stupid.

>>8671569
rolling

>>8673901
tfw you will never round up the people who like xkcd and put them into camps

>>8673901
>To ignore some academic consensus is to announce that you are either a super genius, one of the smartest men alive and probably one of the smartest who ever lived, or that everyone is stupid except for you, which I suppose amount to the same thing.

Or to simply announce that academia has accepted a consensus out of prejudice and repetition, which has happened countless times before.

>>8673901
there is nothing special to disagree with the mainstream academia opinion, one shouldn't be a genius for that too
if people didn't do it all the time science would stop
i dunno what opinion you are talking about, but afaik nothing gender-related really have been truly strongly proven

>>8673845
i believe one shouldn't be phd to post to peer reviewed journals
furthermore i believe you likely can't get a decent phd degree if you didn't have some articles published there

>>8673923
>there is nothing special to disagree with the mainstream academia opinion
Not at all. There is a difference though from rejecting a majority and rejecting everything. 3/4 of all moral philosophers are moral realists. That does not mean the moral nihilists are stupid or that their position is weak. 1/4 is still a sizeable group. Compare that to objectivists. They have almost no presence in academia because their philosophy is garbage. It is to those who clash with academia in the second sense to who I refer.

>i believe one shouldn't be phd to post to peer reviewed journals
Why?

File: beat it.jpg (53KB, 692x488px) Image search: [Google]

53KB, 692x488px

>>8673906

Not with that attitude.

>>8673930
>Why?
what why? i have said that those journals accept articles form those scholars who don't have a phd (yet)

>>8673756
>>8673777
doesn't parse

>>8671569
rawling for Paddington

>>8671569
roll

>>8671569
Oh boy

>>8671569
JKROWLING

>>8673626
>the state of being male or female (typically used with reference to social and cultural differences rather than biological ones)
Straight out of oxford, m8.
You're literally complaining about a word having a meaning that triggers you. Now I wont deny that there's a strong correlation between one's people gender and sex, but that's not at all hardcore truth. I that was the case changes in the roles and expectations of each gender would be as static, and if you haven't noticed what was expected of a man and a woman 50 years ago it's not the same as today.
Also, the entire "it's biology" argument could be also used to justify, for example, transgenderism. As is has been shown a correlation between the phenomena of transgenderism and certain brain structures. So there might be some credit to those trannys saying they're actually girls and that they feel that way considering it could be just their brains telling them that.

feminism gives free contraceptives to women, while they do nothing for those for men, especially they never fought for them to be free of charge
and they never encouraged free drugs to fight against the erectile dysfucntion, as you must have a boner before even putting a condom, while they advocate sexual jouissance for every woman on earth

feminism does nothing to liberate the talk about psychological violence on men from women

feminism does nothing to liberate the talk of raped men inside a household

feminism favorizes the abortion whithout even the requirement to inform the father

feminism does nothing against coerced paternity

feminism does nothing about the inequality favouring women on the dating game

feminists actually do not promote intellectual independence as a men is considered a sexist scumbag as soon as he disagrees with them or even try to nuance their positions

do you still believe that the feminists fight for equality ?

>>8674205
i'm not even a woman but this post is retarded

>>8673889

questioning honesty is quite different than ignoring more than a literal century of grievances because it doesn't match your ideological representations of history and gender

>>8674205

hmm looks like you formed your opinion of feminism on the internet

>>8674232

and desu, one would then be in the position of explaining why one believes the expression of a grievance like, "being called a slut makes me uncomfortable," or a preferential demand such as, "i would prefer to be called by certain pronouns," would be subject to "dishonesty." one would have to suppose that the person is lying about their subjective experience, and then further have to defend why they believed that. i'd be interested to see the arguments in defense of those beliefs as well as they mental contortions by which they would be dissociated from fascism and oppression.

>>8674248
Not him, but the easy answer is to reply that "I feel oppressed not being able to call women sluts when I think they are being sluts." You'd similarly have to take this claim at face value and not assume the person is lying about being oppressed.

>>8673906
>xkcd
That's smbc.

>>8671569
plz shekelberg

anyone obsessed with gender issues outside of normal things like equal rights (money-related, voting, livelihood) needs to be avoided at all costs AKA almost everyone in this thread.

>>8671569
roll

>>8671569
rollins

>>8674686
>money related
>livelihood
>he fell for the pay gap

>>8673646
No, I got her childish point perfectly well.

That doesn't make the chomo profound.

>>8673757
Objects don't exist.
>>8673787
Not at all, you are just biased to believe that.

>>8673794
>which is oppressive, or acknowledge your role in an oppressive apparatus, at which point continuing to serve that role would also be oppressive.
I'd just take it one step further and say that the term "oppression" doesn't meaningfully or accurately describe human relationships, and that any argument dependent on it is invalid from the start.

>>8673747
>Gender is not a thing that's out there to be seen or experienced
pretty sure I can experience my peepee

>inb4 gender isnt sex
but the two are intrinsically connected

>>8671569
I liek mudkipz

File: 1475683168056.jpg (46KB, 540x608px) Image search: [Google]

46KB, 540x608px

>>8674686
>normal things like equal rights (money-related, voting, livelihood)
All bullshit, by the way. Feminism has never had a legitimate cause and they have never fought for anything. Women have always had it better than men. Doubly so now.

>>8671569
No