the real poison in academic philosophy

[dfindley]

the state/social-politic and culture is a direct reflection of the quality, and race, of the people who perpetuate it.

or are northwestern europeans just 'lucky' that they live in near perfect states?

or am i not allowed to do philosophy if it implies racism?

hey guess why the US will never be as good as finland (---> expelled and barred from academia forever)

[bar_scene_gambler]

 

 

Also, I'm to BSG, I'm not really here to educate you about feminist philosophy or critical race theory. I'm not assuming a conclusion, I'm providing a well accepted definition, which isn't an argument. 

 

An odd one at that, but I can except a simple presentation. But what should I call prejudice absent a power structure if not sexist or racist? Just prejudice?

[bar_scene_gambler]

This all seems very silly. 

 

What does? The general disagreement or the distaste for academic language? Because the latter isn't exactly uncommon.

[Loric]

Oy..

 

The reason "they" wont allow there to be discussion of "reverse-racism" and "reverse-sexism" as just simply racism and sexism is because you'd have to accept misandry as the counterpoint to misogyny.

 

"They" refuse to allow that.. primarily because acknowledging the existence of misandry weakens many concepts that are at the core of feminism.

[Loric]

See? Immediately downvoted.

 

Google the debate on misandry and it will all suddenly make sense.

[bar_scene_gambler]

Just to be clear here, I do not side with the increasingly racist and sexist comments of dfindley. I'm all for gender-neutral writing, I just don't that the exclusive use of one pronoun over the other is​ ​actually gender-neutral. 

[dfindley]

is it really philosophy or is it an enforcement of american liberal democratic culture?

its this way because that is what the 'definition' of it is. period. and if you disagree --which you better not if youre a white male-- then youre a nazi and you WILL be persecuted to the fullest extent.

the end consequence of feminist and race theory isnt philosophy -- they are the establishment of

an ethical status quo.

[dfindley]

....damn it. i suppose a topic as sensitive as this really deserves more effort on my part. the utmost effort. that im simply not here to exercise.

im here to troll . not challenge the bedrock of american demoliberal culture and ethical standards. that is one monster im just going to pass on by....

[Table]

I don't see how there is any necessary connection between using she as a gender-neutral pronoun and citing a woman. Sometimes it just happens to be the case that there aren't any women who have done relevant work regarding what one is writing about, and that's okay.

There are few topics where there are genuinely no women doing any relevant work. There are very many topics where women's work is less widely known and acknowledged, but that's different. 

 

 

It actually isn't sexist to use she exclusively. Sexism requires structures of power and oppression to which women simply don't have access. 

 

It's not actually an odd use of the word; catwoman's definitions are pretty standard in academia. Pick up any textbook on racism and sexism, and you'll see the definition catwoman is using. Racism=prejudice + power. Sexism=prejudice + power. The distinction serves to keep attention on the larger, systematic oppressions at play, rather interpersonal interactions.

It's true that these are very standard definitions in academia. It's also true that ordinary uses of the terms do not involve a power requirement—I think the definitions you'd see in an average dictionary, something like "prejudice or discrimination based on race/gender; belief that certain traits are primarily determined by race/gender" are very close to how laypeople actually use the terms (use that predates the academic precisifications, but that's not enormously important). 

Saying things like "It's not sexist, sexism requires power" is not helpful, because there is a correct, genuine sense of 'sexism' on which it does not require power—the ordinary one. Saying something like "I prefer to use a technical sense of 'sexism' on which..." would make what's going on more transparent, but I suspect transparency is not actually the goal here. I'm really not involved enough in the area to know what rationale is given for defining 'sexism' and 'racism' in a technical way to refer to a subset of what falls under the ordinary senses of the terms. Maybe there's a good one. In casual discussion, though, it seems primarily used to treat people who disagree as though they're making a mistake.

On BSG's original comment, though, I don't think using 'she' exclusively for gender-irrelevant examples in philosophy is sexist under the looser sense of the term either. Think about the reasons not to use 'he' exclusively. Which of those apply to using 'she' exclusively?

[Cottagecheeseman]

I think we should just ignore this thread, guys, lets talk about philosophy and grad school here, this discussion is falling into SJW Tumblr Trolling level, and that makes nobody happy.

Also I realy wish Dfindley would stop posting here. He's gone from humorous troll to mentally ill to mentally ill racist/sexist. It's time we stopped humouring him.

[pqo309]

I find this discussion to be pretty fascinating and I don't quite understand your hand-wringing, zizeksucks. What is a philosophy forum without some actual debate?

 

I've heard this "academic definition" from a friend of mine before, but I don't buy it. The power requirement is too poorly defined to make such a blanket statement as, "it can't be racism if they don't have power." Does a black condo owner who refuses to rent to a white guy because of his race not have power?

[MatintaP]

I think Catwoman's definitions of the terms sexism and racism make perfect sense. By definition sexism or racism do not designate the individual intentions of social agents or even a number of them. Those terms designate primarily social systems of practices and values in which people find themselves and which they reproduce in their practice and speech. Sure, a woman may earnestly say that she hates men in virtue of their being men and truly mean what she says. That, however, does not allow us to claim that misandry or 'reverse-sexism' exists as a coherent system of beliefs, practices and values, historically founded on religious and social institutions of power in the same way as misogyny does. If a woman does say that, it will be nothing but an isolated anomalous case that is likely a misguided response to the power structures that are actually the case. To say, "That statement is racist," does not mean, "That statement expresses the hateful thoughts of the speaker towards a race." It actually means, "That statement reiterates the beliefs of a socially objective system of thought that legitimizes a socially objective power structure that oppresses a socially constructed race."

So the actuality of a power structure and its ideology are (and must continue to be) fundamental aspects of the definition of those terms. To apply those concepts universally to mean a speaker's personal and isolated hatred is a (suspicious) attempt to neutralize their critical and political efficacy.

[Loric]

And which point you're admitting it has nothing to do with what is or isn't, but rather politics..

[MatintaP]

I don't get it, Loric. It has very much to do with what is or isn't, but it is also a political problem. Sexism and Racism are actual abhorrent structures of power and are, as such, political. I think there is a right definition of the terms, which does not exist independently of a political and historical actuality.

[Loric]

But your "right definition" is not the original nor the common. Even in your example of what a statement "really means" is trying to change the intent of the author as no one would say that to a mass audience outside of academia and mean the second definition instead of the first.

 

The second definition is the political construct. It is the invalid definition.

[Loric]

As for misandry not being..

 

"a coherent system of beliefs, practices and values, historically founded on religious and social institutions"

 

Marilyn French called men "the enemy." Germaine Greer wrote that that: "women have no idea how much men hate them." Betty Friedan, amazingly, referred to suburban domestic life as a "comfortable concentration camp" for women, and to their husbands a SS prison guards. Rosalind Miles described men as "the death sex." Valerie Solanas wrote "The SCUM Manifesto", the Society for Cutting Up Men, and Robin Morgan obligingly publicized this hate literature.

 

These are people with power and status who have taught this ideology to others.

[MatintaP]

Original or common definitions have special authority in virtue of being so. I'm not changing the person's intent, I'm only trying to show what the word "racist" designated in speech, which is a hate-discourse a person reproduces and not a person's isolated hatred. If a white person claims a black person is being racist, given our actual structures of power, then this white person is using the term erroneously, in my opinon. To use the above example a black person who refuses to rent a house to a white person in virtue of their whiteness is not being racist so much as she is being stupid and hateful, responding in a morally reprehensible manner to the racism she does encounter in society.

[MatintaP]

No* special authority, I meant.

[Loric]

Well, if the academic standard "is the standard" regardless of circumstance.. academically "he" is the gender neutral pronoun.

[MatintaP]

Loric, as much power and status as 8000 years of male domination have given and still do give men? You cannot collect isolated 20th Century 'examples' of a supposed "misandry" (the charges of which sound suspiciously like male anxiety at challenges to their power) and compare it to the intellectual, political and cultural history of western civilization, which is, to this very day, mysogynist.

[dfindley]

you know it doesnt matter how smart you -sound- if your point is stupid?

[Loric]

Loric, as much power and status as 8000 years of male domination have given and still do give men? You cannot collect isolated 20th Century 'examples' of a supposed "misandry" (the charges of which sound suspiciously like male anxiety at challenges to their power) and compare it to the intellectual, political and cultural history of western civilization, which is, to this very day, mysogynist.

 

So we go to matriarchal society in Albania, China, Africa.. and suddenly the point is valid?

[Loric]

And if we're going to talk matters of "degree" when it comes to hatred and attack.. More men are killed in homicides than women, and more commonly injured in assaults, yet special legislation exists to protect women with harsher punishments for crimes against women.

[MatintaP]

So we go to matriarchal society in Albania, China, Africa.. and suddenly the point is valid?

No, we stay where we are and recognize that misogyny is an ideological and political reality with 8000+ years of history. "Misandry," on the other hand, is a reactionary anxiety caused by a perceived challenge to power.

[Loric]

And you honestly think not a single claim of misandry is legitimate?

 

Again, you're speaking politically and ignoring facts as it's convenient to you.