/lit/ - Literature

Because Foucault's early work was decent but then he turned into an edgy chucklefuck.

>>3798687
That sounds about right.

>>3798686
Because it's PoMo.

It isn't.

>>3798702
Why not?

>>3798686
I would have gone with pseudoscientific, but yours works too.

Because:

http://emilkirkegaard.dk/en/wp-content/uploads/Fashionable-Nonsense-Postmodern-Intellectuals-Abuse-of-Science-Alan-Sokal-Jean-Bricmont.pdf

http://emilkirkegaard.dk/en/wp-content/uploads/beyond-the-hoax-alan-sokal.pdf

>>3798705

Why is it?

>>3798706
Ah, the Sokal paper. The gift that keeps on giving.

>>3798713

More like the circle jerk that keeps on jerking.

Remember that time Sokal tore down postmodern critical theory and all the academics realized they were in an obscurantist racket and everything stopped?

Me either.

>>3798714
Explain then why PoMo is a good thing.

>>3798719

No. That is unnecessary.

>>3798706
>>3798713

Ah, the Sokal "hoax." AKA when Sokal submitted a paper to an insignificant journal, was told it needed major editing, and he pulled scientific rank and made them publish it anyway.

If that whole fiasco taught us anything, it's that journals will publish based on a name more than an idea.

>>3798723
>If that whole fiasco taught us anything, it's that journals will publish based on a name more than an idea.

Oh hey, someone who gets it. Rare for /lit/.

Polite sage.

>>3798723

You've got an ax to grind, OP, and not even you're sure why.

Protip, though: if you want to have a discussion about something, especially a critical discussion, start off with some actual ideas and quotes that you take issue with and specify what your problems are.

>>3798686

Can someone sum up "Queer Theory" in a few lines? Greentext also welcome.

>>3798728

He's just another one of those 4chan guys who read too many /pol/ infographics and "check your cis privilege" memes and wanted to come to /lit/ to get people to defend queer theory so he could call them dumb.

The fact that he has ignored two requests to explain himself, while simultaneously trying to get people to take his bait and defend against his nothing is a pretty strong illustration of that.

>>3798734

/lit/ scholarship, ladies and gentlemen. "Please sum up this academic movement with greentext pls thx".

Too lazy even for wikipedia.

>>3798734
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/homosexuality/#QueTheSocConSex

Just read this.

>>3798727

Like a lot of fields in the humanities, queer theory has become very hermetic, and I'm not convinced it can be effective in an institution like the modern university. The recent spread of a basic form of queer theory on blogs and tumblr is certainly interesting.

>>3798747
>The recent spread of a basic form of queer theory on blogs and tumblr is certainly interesting.

No. Just no.

>>3798756

Why not?

>>3798761
Have you ever been on tumblr? Place is asinine.

>>3798762
Have you ever been on 4chan. Place is asinine.

>>3798756
Interesting because I'm interested in how ideas spread, obviously it's mostly an orgy of stupidity.

>>3798763
This is 4chan, place your ass in mine.

>>3798762

So you don't have any reasons?

>>3798766
/lit/ isn't that much like the rest of 4chan, fortunately. It definitely is 4chan, though, unfortunately.

>>3798767
He is saying that anyone with the ability to see and read recognize the amount of idiocy circulating on tumblr, and therefore assuems that you haven't been there. I'm willing to agree with him.

>>3798770
>i'm so special

protip: /lit/ is just like the rest of 4chan

>>3798771

So you don't have any reasons?

>>3798771
Exactly. "Die cis scum" and "check your ______ privilege" aren't exactly scholarship.

>>3798780

>it's just obviously idiocy I don't need reasons

So you don't have any reasons?

"Michel Foucault has a head like a fucking orange." - Engelbert Humperdinck

>>3798747
Obscure + no scholarship standards sounds not a good idea.

>>3798686
Because we still have a hard time understanding how society interacts and produces certain characteristic in individuals.

Because a lot of current scientific scholarship still tries to deny that gender is a social construct.

Because we never had anything but bullshit theory of sexuality in our own history.

tl;dr - sexuality is a field we know nothing about so we make up stuff as we go

>>3798795
>Because we never had anything but bullshit theory of sexuality in our own history.

Sounds about right.

>>3798795
>Because we still have a hard time understanding how society interacts and produces certain characteristic in individuals.
Feminism doesn't produce an answer in the slightest way and the field is not about finding that answer within the frames of their own ideology

>Because a lot of current scientific scholarship still tries to deny that gender is a social construct.
Because biology is a science that actually produces result based on hard science that can be proven

>Because we never had anything but bullshit theory of sexuality in our own history.
Add yet another, give me hard proof that validates queer theory

>tl;dr - sexuality is a field we know nothing about so we make up stuff as we go
feminism =/= sexuality , that's actually a pretty sexist thing to say, feminism is still shit.

>>3798795
>Because we never had anything but bullshit theory of sexuality in our own history.

But that's a position queer theorists hold.

>>3798809

Feminism and queer theory are two different things, even sometimes opposed. I'm not sure why you're bringing it up.

Could it be because you're an ignorant reactionary? :OOOOOOOOOOO

>>3798809
You probably have not understood a single line in my post. Congratulations.

>>3798811
Not really.Unless you count psychoanalysis or evo-psych as good producing good theories of sexuality.

>>3798809
Give me hard proof that validates string theory.

>>3798817
Not him, but what are the implications of "gender is a social construct"? I mean, so what? Does that somehow invalidate it?

>>3798809
>fetishizing proof

>>3798822
I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. That anon was saying queer theorists agree about the theory of sexuality throughout history, and then you said "no, unless you count psychoanalysis and evo-psych" which doesn't seem like a sensible response to what he said.

>>3798719
Explain why Sokal's paper was a good thing; explain how it did anything other than widen the gap between scientific thought and philosophical thought for both "pseudophilosophers" and genuine philosophers, a gap which, I should remind you, will only create more radical philosophers and scientists ignorant of philosophy. For that matter, explain what Sokal's paper actually did, in reality, to real philosophers and scientists

>>3798817
Well because you're referencing to a "scientific" field that is the result of political meddling and its results and finding shit that most of the time are loosely based on the scientific method.

Women studies is an absolute joke within the scientific community. Not because of the subject matter but because they can't produce findings that matter. It's mostly ideological riff-raff. Any scientist worth his or her or "zir" name will tell you that.

>>3798824
I don't even study that shit and am just lurking the thread, but the implications seem pretty obvious. If gender is socially constructed, then how we define things related to gender (and how we treat things related to gender via judgement, the law, etc) can be seen under a much different light.

>>3798826
Just leave. If you were my Ph.D i'd have you fired so fast from my dept.

>>3798771
Schopenhauer thought the university was circulating idiocy but he still stayed there

your move misogynists

>>3798824

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_construction_of_gender_difference
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_performativity

Read some.

>>3798830

Man you should really spend less time on the internet. You're like swinging punches in the dark.

>>3798838
What, do you want me to find you a list of scholars who disagrees with Schopenhauer?

>>3798840
Yeah, he keeps referencing things that aren't in your post. /pol/ needs to reprogram him.

>>3798834
And that would be an emotional, non-scientific decision.

>>3798847

Snap.

>>3798828
>For that matter, explain what Sokal's paper actually did, in reality, to real philosophers and scientists

Gave them license to be intolerably smug whenever they discuss the humanities.

>>3798839
I still don't get how this changes anything. I am sorry if I am being obtuse. Biological differences between sexes are exemplified through gender roles. What does this change?

>>3798847
Yes, firing someone because they can't abide by the scientific method while working on a university is a very unscientific and emotional.

>>3798852
>implying feminism acknowledges biological determenism

That's the entire problem. Get prepared for being called a misogynist.

>>3798852
>Biological differences between sexes are exemplified through gender roles.

There's no arguing with a hard biological determinist, so there's really no point in talking to you further.

>>3798853
You're making a lot of extrapolations and assumptions about how he works at this hypothetical university based off of a single post. Not very scientific of you.

>>3798857
>There's no arguing with a hard biological determinist, so there's really no point in talking to you further.

Like a clock.

>>3798852
Technically, there's not any implication to gender being a social construct or anything that's changed. Something being socially constructed doesn't necessarily mean it's bad (though most activists ignore this), but it lets you critique the system at least a little bit; so when someone tells you that boys wear blue and girls wear pink because "that's the way it is" you can respond that it isn't and give an account of 19th century gender segregation or whatever caused it. Both activists and /pol/ make it out to be bigger than it really is.

>>3798852
Biological differences have nothing to do with gender differences.

>>3798859
No I said, if he were a ph.d of mine i'd have him fired. I'm not implying he is working on a university, i'm saying that i am.

>>3798860

I'm not insulting him, just speaking from experience. It's an entrenched ideological position, and we are too far apart to have anything resembling a productive discussion.

>>3798868

>muh proof

STEMbabbies

>>3798864

Please don't do this.

wasn't it agreed that gender roles only reflective of biological differences insofar as their application within the order established by the neolithic revolution

>>3798872
*are only

>>3798853
It is when they don't work in a science department.

>>3798871

He's mostly right.

>>3798869
Biological determenism isn't an ideological position, biology is based on scientific evidence peer-reviewed and controlled by meta-studies.

>>3798855
Really, what makes you - >>3798857 - oh. I see.

>>3798857
I am simply stating there are biological differences between the sexes. I wasn't aware that facts were avaliable for discussion.

>>3798869
No, really. I am here asking quesitons because I am interested in what you have to say. If I were not interested in having a discussion, I would not be here.

>>3798862
I have a feeling I will end up agreeing with you/

>>3798877

That doesn't matter. The conversation is obnoxious and it's been done a thousand times on this forum. It's a pointless conversation to have.

>>3798872
>agreed

This is academia we're talking about.

>>3798879

Okay.

>>3798868
>you are now aware that STEM department heads spend most of their time shitposting on 4chan

>>3798881
>I am simply stating there are biological differences between the sexes.

Don't play coy, worm. You are stating that biological differences between sexes dictate their gender roles. If you're going to be a bigot, at least be an honest one.

>>3798879

>biology
>scientific

lel

>>3798876
Even if they did work in a science department, people are capable of compartmentalization of ideas. As long as his work in the department was strictly scientific, he could technically believe whatever the fuck he wanted to believe.

>>3798882
Hide the thread and leave, then. Clearly not everybody has had the same conversations on here as you have.

>>3798888

Wait you mean scientists aren't paragons of human rationality and sometimes the things they believe outside their work aren't necessarily 100% scientific?

That's fucking bullshit!

>>3798889
Haha, i'm not a dept. head but I'm in charge of some Ph.D's

>>3798890
>You are stating that biological differences between sexes dictate their gender roles

Typical gender roles, definitely; how this makes me bigoted?

Is this really what you are doing? You do realist that the one reason I am here is because I want to know what you have to say, and why you think what you think. You have the opportunity to educate me and instead you throw insults at me, bloody fantastic.

>>3798890
So, just to get this straight, Gender has no biological component whatsoever and is only determined by enviromental factors? Or i'm getting this whole issue wrong?

>>3798827
I read it at saying "only queer theorists believe that our current theories of sexuality are bs" and I explained why I think every thing is generally bad.

It's true queer theorists agree that they are bad, but they are not putting out anything better.

>>3798898
*realise

>>3798898
>Typical gender roles, definitely

Define typical gender roles and then prove that biological differences dictate those roles.

>>3798864
would you say then that animals have gender at all? human animals and insects included?

>>3798900
Wait, so feminism is saying I could have two radically different parents than now and be of the opposite sex and still end up exactly as I am now if it wasn't for the patriarchal oppression?

>>3798906
it's easier to do outside the species. Gender roles in birds and insects especially well defined.

Guys I always though Queer Theory in regards to literature has to do more with how gender is portrayed than MUH CIS GENDER CHECK IT.

>>3798918

>he thinks this is a literature board

Oh, those naive days of yore.

This is a 4chan general thread. Where we circle jerk over how ridiculous feminists and gays are. We might even bring in race later, and giggle over those standard deviations in IQ distribution.

>>3798922
Or you know glory in the bountiful self-perception of how much holier-than-thou we are.

>>3798914
No, feminism isn't saying shit. But basic sociology isn't saying that either. You have large gaps in your understanding of what environment is, how biological differences can affect environment, and how a misunderstanding of all of these things can and does affect your environment.

>>3798852
Gender roles are not born from sexual differences.
Gender role is the specific interpretation that society gives to these differences.

There is nothing in our biology that dictates that man cannot be classical dancers. Only in a society where men are expected to be serious businessman being a dancer is the sign of being effeminate.

In a society where men are expected to be warriors to be a man is to be reckless, not being a chicken, and if you back off from risks and fights you are a pussy. In today's society being reckless is considered stupid and a real man is the one who resorts to violence last.

See how things change? And nothing changed in our biology recently so you cannot explain it to that.

>>3798924

But I am holier than thou.

>>3798881
this is
>>3798862
I think that the real dichotomy isn't between biological determinism and social constructivism, as others are putting it to be, but rather between constructivism and essentialism. Almost no one will really call themselves a biological essentialist, but everyone is in some way; it basically says that certain groups of people have an "essence," a feminine essence, a black essence, an American essence, etc.

Ian Hacking gives as an example in The Social Construction of What? the idea of "woman refugees"—the women aren't themselves 'socially constructed,' but there's a complex of ideas regarding the theoretical/typical woman refugee which countries shape their policies around as if it were a real person. The idea is kind of vaguely understood a lot of places and is taken to mean "lol nothings real" a lot, but I think the core of it is avoiding stereotyping in a more nuanced way than telling people not to be racists or whatever. The problem is that a lot of people do buy into socially constructed roles even when they're detrimental (which itself is subjective), so it turns into women telling women not to be women and women telling women they aren't real women and so on

>>3798916
What's the difference between humans and non-human animals?

>>3798918
4chan would never take queer literary theorists seriously, because of the approaches they take:

>Sedgwick encouraged readers to consider the "potential queer erotic resonances" purportedly able to be found in the writing of Henry James.[15] Drawing on and herself performing a "thematics of anal fingering and ‘fisting-as-écriture’" (or writing) in James’s work, Sedgwick put forward the idea that sentences whose "relatively conventional subject-verb-object armature is disrupted, if never quite ruptured, as the sac of the sentence gets distended by the insinuation of one more, qualifying phrase or clause" can best be apprehended as either giving readers the vicarious experience of having their rectums crammed with a finger or fist, or of their own ‘probing digit’ inserted into a rectum.

>>3798918
>CIS

gb2tumblr pls

>>3798945
>The Turn of the Screw
come on anon it's right in the title
actually phallogocentrism has ruined academia because it's really edgy and applicable but makes you sound like a crazy person

>>3798943
well, sexual dimorphism and behavior is a lot more diverse in non-human animals. The male and female roles, body sizes, behaviors, etc vary widely. Consider the angler fish, the mandrill, the american cardinal, not even getting into haplo-diploid species where forms and behaviors are incredibly different and there are more than two sexes. The question is, basically, do we consider these things related to "gender", esentially a linguistic idea, or sexual dimorphism, a biological concept.

>>3798945 here is a good one also

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Susan_McClary#The_Beethoven_and_rape_controversy

The point of recapitulation in the first movement of the Ninth is one of the most horrifying moments in music, as the carefully prepared cadence is frustrated, damming up energy which finally explodes in the throttling murderous rage of a rapist incapable of attaining release.

>>3798906
To use an easy example, then:
Men are physically stronger and thus more able to do manual labour and work that requires more strength.
Society then reinforces this by making masculinity something which requires being strong, enduring etc.

Women are naturally more inclined to care for children, as it is a far larger investment for the woman than the man, so society creates a gender that cares for children.

Examples, of course. I cannot exactly summarise all that it is to be masculine/femine, especially consideirng how they have been descontructed over the last however many years.

>>3798926
I was always under the impression that it was both biological factors and environmental factors that affected development.

>>3798929
So the fact that men can put on muscle faster and thus are more suited to physical labour is what?
But yes, recently we have changed gender roles so they are less dependant on biology, but I would still contest that they are yet independant, as very few would expect a woman to conform to male fitness standards for joining the police and the army for example.

>>3798940
Abandon stereotypes entirely and treat everyone as individuals, ok. But that still wouldn't get rid of common behavioural patterns.

>>3798945
No, I can see why, though are you suggesting people DO take this seriously?

Anyway I don't know how today you can believe in traditional gender roles.
I mean I would be hard pressed to explain my role in today society based on my gender.

I look at the relationship I have with my gf and this is what I see:
I cook because I like cooking, she cannot cook.
We clean together the house.
She makes more money than me because she is a stem major and I'm a philosophy major.
I don't need to be protective since we live in a fairly non-violent area.
There is plenty of available and sexually liberated women so no one starts hitting on "your" girls.

Basically me and my girl live in the exact same way except she buys tampons.

>>3798966
Are you saying that modern feminists doesn't adore the SCUM Manifesto?

>>3798969
>Not admitting that you're oppressing her

Nice move there, you fucking scum.

>>3798969
So your point is that all understandings of gender and feminism in our society should be based on your relationship with you girlfriend?

>>3798969
>Basically me and my girl live in the exact same way
>She makes more money than me
>I cook , she cannot

>>3798966
>So the fact that men can put on muscle faster and thus are more suited to physical labour is what?

Man put muscles faster is a biological fact.
Thus they tend to be fitter for physical labor is a sociological fact (no labor, no fitness to recognize).
Thus a man is who does physical labor, is gender construction.

Ps. I don't know where you live, but armies are full of excellent fighting women.

>>3798954
People get trapped in banal literalism and are unable to think of the phallus as anything but a penis. 'Privileging of presence' is definitely a concept worth taking seriously.

>>3798983
My best friend makes more money than me and cannot cook. He is a male.

>>3798988
Oh, really. Which army would that be? I'd like you to mention what armies that has women actively serving on the front line right now.

>>3798976
No, my point is that we have more and more available ways of living and organizing our lives without factoring in gender roles.
My point is: I never ask "what it is expected of me as a man" or "what does it mean to be a man".

>>3798988
I served in the paras for four years, Britain.

>excellent fighting women
Oh yes, for women. That's the point, the average women in the army cannot compete with the average man. You do realise that they do not serve in combat roles, don't you?

>Thus they tend to be fitter for physical labor is a sociological fact (no labor, no fitness to recognize).
No, it isn't. The average male has more muscle than the average female. This is biological fact.
Having more muscle is what makes you suitable for manual labour. This is fact.
Thus, that men are more suited to labour is a biological fact.

Also,
>Man put muscles faster


>>3798990
My point was showing that you did not, in fact, live in the same way.

>>3798963

>>3798994
Here is australia:

FEWER than 20 women have applied for frontline combat roles in Australia since new policies allowing all military positions to be filled on merit rather than gender, officials say.

The Australian Defence Force opened up its most demanding and dangerous frontline jobs to women in January in a move hailed as an important step in improving a military culture tarnished by sex abuse and harassment allegations.

In doing so Australia became one of only a few countries to do so. Others include New Zealand, Canada and Israel.

But the take-up has been low so far, with fewer than 20 of the 8,000 women in the defence force applying, said Major General Gerard Fogarty, who is managing the five-year plan to bring women into direct combat roles.

I'm guessing the outcome will be similar for US who opened up in 2013.

>>3798971
Valerie Solanas was fucking boss though, I wish somebody would shoot Damien Hirst or some other "Great Art" shithead

"When she bottomed out, Solanas, homeless and destitute, is said to have passed away in San Francisco. It was 1988. Whether or not she had lost her brutal ironic edge, nobody knows. Her mother claims she lived a happy life, populated with friends and gentle experiences, to the end. One of the questions that the name Valerie Solanas continues to raise, at least for me, concerns those who have an acute sense of injustice. They drag around at the end, stuporous, drained, shivering in near autistic spheres of solitude. Their language shivers still. I think of Nietzsche, slumped over. I see the others, the 'men,' the 'women,' whatever they are or thought they were. On some nights, Valerie's weariness washes over me. I hear her typing out in the apartment above mine: 'The shit you have to go through in this world just to survive.'"

>>3799002
Good for you, but your experience is hardly universal.

>>3798994
The israeli army.

>>3799003
Your point is insignificant because those differences are not traceable to gender differences.

>>3799001

>australia
>combat roles

pick one

>>3798966
>Men are physically stronger and thus more able to do manual labour and work that requires more strength.
>Society then reinforces this by making masculinity something which requires being strong, enduring etc.

Do you know that there are many African tribal societies that consider it the woman's job to do heavy lifting? That in those societies, women are considered the "Strong" sex?

>>3799003
You do understand that the fact that man need muscle to fight is a sociological consequence of how the fight is made.

If you use swords muscles are needed a lot. If you only do drone warfare there is no need for muscles.

The point is that gender roles are not a straight consequences of biology, but they are biology interpreted through the prism of society.

>>3798734
I don't have a problem with greentext, but people who ASK for it are retards of the worst kind.

>>3799021
doesnt make them naturally stronger

men have a higher build up of testosterone which promotes muscle growth

Anybody ever worked with girls on a farm knows there's stuff they do better than you and stuff they can barely do at all. They can't plow, for instance, and if you made the plow littler for them, the horse would probably run away with it and they sure couldn't turn as deep. They sure couldn't turn sod. If you hitched ponies and gave them a little double shovel or a seeding plow they might be able to job it, but they'd nevr be able to turn with a bull tongue, and if they tried it would kill them.

Now at setting, or weeding, or even suckering and stripping, they will purely wear you out. And there's a dozen things like that. guys can do the big work that takes strength, and girls the little work that takes a long time. Also, I never met a man yet could turn out a decent pie crust.

>>3799021
anecdotal fallacy

>>3799013
Yes, but that means that traditional gender roles are hardly universal too.

If my experience is possible it means that traditional gender roles are not biologically determined nor needed. It only takes one exception to deny necessity and universality.

>>3799029
>Also, I never met a man yet could turn out a decent pie crust.

That's because you work on a farm. Try going to a decent restaurant in a big city sometimes, if you can afford it.

>>3799028
>doesnt make them naturally stronger

Exactly. So natural strength is not a justification for the gender role. It has nothing to do with it.

>Men are naturally stronger
Yes.
>Therefore men should do manual labor
Social imposition.

>>3799018
What? Which one are you talking about?

>>3799021
And...? An exception to the norm.

>>3799035
>hurr stereotypes durr
I thought you were against this sort of thing?

>>3799037
But do you not see how one logically implies the other? Social roles ARE influenced by biology.

>>3799046
>And...? An exception to the norm.

Oh boy, so white European societies are the norm now, are they?

>>3799046

>But do you not see how one logically implies the other? Social roles ARE influenced by biology.

How? How does a woman being naturally weaker than a man mean that she should be the one to carry big ass jugs of water and haul logs?

>>3799046
lol

"yes, social roles can and have changed immensely in different times, places, societies, but still, REAL gender roles (which are, of course, the ones that I grew up with) are inextricably linked to biology, and all the other ones don't count, because [xxx], and they're able to change despite being derived from biology, because [xxx]. clearly i've thought a lot about this and am not just trying to justify my own sexist worldview."

>>3799055

Well you see, when women are pregnant they carry a large load of fluid inside their stomachs, so of course they are naturally more inclined to be the ones to carry and deliver water.

>>3799074
lol

>>3799055

'Cause if she was stronger she wouldn't be having any of that shit.

Duh.

>>3799035
pointing out that working the way id do, in the society i work, a man wouldn't have time to learn how to make a good pie crust. See, the work has to get done, and in a society like mine, it gets divided by who does it the best. So maybe you get little ponies and you train them on little plows and you turn the first six inches or so and grow from that. You still don't cover the acreage. and the rain runs off cause you didn't turn deep enough or you miss the sod roots and they drink all the water and you're weeding out johnson grass half the time. The point is, when you're on a farm, the roles go by who does what best; what's the easiest and can get the best result for who. Thats why men are cutting and housing and women are stripping and grading. It's why men load hay and women sow, and sew, come to that. They CAN do a lot, just not as good or as fast and it's a waste of a man to train him up on pie crusts and stitching. If you're a man more thqan fourteen years old and you;'re still in the stripping room, then you're no man, and i say that meaning no disrespect either way.

>>3799128
The world is not a farm.

>>3799014
>>3799014
Nah bro, women was not allowed to serve as front-line soldier until 2000. And after that you'll be hardpressed to find women that actually serve as front-line soldiers

And several hundred women entered combat units, primarily in support roles, like intelligence gatherers, instructors, social workers, medics and engineers. When the Second Lebanon War broke out, it was the first time since 1948 that women were in field operations alongside men. Airborne helicopter engineer Sgt.-Maj. (res.) Keren Tendler was the first female IDF combat soldier to be killed in action.[2] In November 2007 the Air Force appointed its first woman deputy squadron commander.[13].

You are most likely to find women in active duty roles serving as border-police, which hardly counts as front-line soldiers.

>>3799052
>Oh boy, so white European societies are the norm now, are they?

Yes. At least for you. But you go and fight for feminism and equality in those african tribals areas.

>>3799141
>implying participating in genocide doesn't make one a front-line soldier

>>3799140
The world isn't all a city either, though it will be soon
your children will never see a starry sky

>>3799156
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_in_the_Israel_Defense_Forces

Oh god, the pictures in this articles couldn't be more hand-picked propaganda. They look literally like they were picked from Nazi WWII hitlerjugend picture book.

>>3799140
is for a lot of people. not many in america, that's true. But the thing I'm saying is that there's reasons for doing things that way. And that's that they work: and in whatever world you live in, there's going to be reasons why some types of people move toward one type of work and some another. There's stuff that women can do way better than men: ice skate for one. Why aren't hockey teams all women? Now it's true that the world is built by men, for men, and a lot of times women just cam along for the ride. Cinderblock would be a bout a third smaller if a woman was laying them, and two by four precuts would have to be shorter, and all dimension lumber would scale down, but that would just mean men couldn't use a lot of houses comfortably. also, tool grips and weights are based on men's comfort. But that's because men use them. Woemn have their own scaled tools: try fitting your thumb in a pair of pinking shears for instance. Or your finger in a thimble more than fifty years old.
There's also an element of what people like to do, and have talent at. Some women are going to like and have talent at the same things men do, but mostly not. Ain't nobody knocking hotwheels out of a little girl's hand a d throwin barbies at her: she picks what she likes. Is anybody denying that?

I've read all of this thread and somehow I am no closer to understanding Queer Theory, except for this >>3798918 post.

>>3799186

>surprised /lit/ actually knows very little of literary criticism

>>3799140

LOL

>>3799167
>Ain't nobody knocking hotwheels out of a little girl's hand a d throwin barbies at her: she picks what she likes.
are you really that clueless?

>>3799338
I been there, son. In the third world, sure, maybe in muslim countries and maybe asia, but around America it's been drilled into every schoolteacher and day care worker since the sixties to let them have their own way. And you can say what you want about advertisers, but I garauntee if they thought they could sell hotwheels to giels they'd be trying it. They sell barbies to boys: they just put superhero clothes on them.

>>3798728
>mfw being introduced to queer theory in English 101
Fuck that shit.

The only good theories are that follow, in order of best to least:
>formalism (pizza supreme tier)
>structuralism
>deconstructionism
>mythological
>historical
>social

Any others to add to the list?

>>3799367
Forgot muh face.

>>3799344
Advertisers create gender roles. This has been demonstrated historically in the Soviet Union, which used advertising to encourage girls to take up scientific endeavors and so on. I'd like to know what specific programs have "drilled" gender equality into schoolteachers, because one of the greatest contentions of MRA's as I understand it is that teachers treat girls better than boys in school. I understand that children will often pick out things that correspond to their gender, but almost inevitably the parents choose these things before the child is old enough to understand them. Why is it that every time a child is dressed in gender non-conforming clothing (or further, whenever there are transgender children) everyone blames the parents, as if the child had no say in the matter? What does this say about conforming children?

Also, they do make hotwheels for girls. They look like this:

>>3799014
The sexiest army in the world. I want an IDF gf so badly. I am even willing to convert.

>>3799377
the weird thing about little girls is the soul-crushing peer pressure and heirarchy system they level on each other. Since they seem to be heirarchial naturally, they grab a convention or a style or whatever and enforce it on the group from top down pretty ruthlessly. Little boys tend to be more competitive one on one, and form groups based on that. I guess that's innate, I only know from observation, but that's what enforces gender roles. The teachers would lose their jobs if they were caught doing it.

>>3799384
I'll come with you.

>>3799384
>>3799408
>implying they care if you're a goy
They'll date any sheygetz if they're cute. These are seculars.

>you will never be a chosen warrior of Allah and then capture an IDF female and rape her to death

>>3799421
I'd rather an IDF babe captured me and raped me to death.

>>3799393
That is very true for the specific children you've observed, maybe for all children in general, but I'm not sure that that means it's something innate. After all, in the Victorian era you see all these near-lesbian (from our point of view) levels of intimacy between women for whatever reason. Even if their competition is something innately sexual, it's been aggravated by social conditions like the sexual revolution and the breakdown of traditional courtship. It's just hard to say that anything is innate or natural simply from observation; I could say that dogs have always been man's best friend from observation and it wouldn't be historically accurate.

>>3799421
wut?

>>3798686
dat image

If gender is a social construct why do transgender people think they are the other gender despite what society tells them?

>>3799623
Because they're mentally ill. Sociologists are generally for the institutionalization of the transgendered.

>>3799623
same reason race is a social construct until someone starts handing out goodie bags with your name on it.

>>3799630
Are they? Then why is there a massive acceptance movement attatched to the social justice lot? What makes trans people more mentally ill than say gays?

(a clarification: I don't think gays are mentall ill)

>>3799632
Yes, I can believe that. Seems a little too easy though.

>>3799623
If religion is a social construct than why some people don't accept the religion they get?

>>3799642
>Are they?
lol no.

>>3799632
Accepting social construction only strengthens the reasons for those goodie bags.

>>3799645
Is religion a social contruct, though?

>>3799649
>looking at your penis and thinking you should have a vagina
>not mentally ill

bwahahahahahah

>>3799654
Good argument.

>>3799654
The "Are they?" wasn't "Are they mentally ill?" but "Are sociologists for the institutionalization of the transgendered?"

>>3799656
Ok, sorry. But how can you think someone looking at their own body, thinking it should be something entirely different is healthy mental behaviour.

So yes, have sympathy, yes, help them, but by the powers don't tell me its not mentally ill.

>>3799663
Yes. I meant are sociologists.... Sorry for not claryfying.

What's the problem with trannies? I think they are hot.

>>3798774
not really. there's a distinctive cultural gap between here, and maybe /sci/ and boards that accumulate older posters, and the rest of 4chin. doesn't mean it's good.

>>3799665
This isn't up to you to decide dumbass. Please do some actual research first.

>>3799665
why is wanting to change your body mentally unhealthy?

>>3799686
> by professor Dick Swaab, with evidence leaning toward prenatal and genetic causes.
>Another study suggests that transsexuality may have a genetic component
>Summarizing my impression, I would like to repeat here what I said in my first lecture on the subject more than 10 years ago: Our genetic and endocrine equipment constitutes either an unresponsive, sterile, or a more or less responsive, that is to say, fertile soil on which the wrong conditioning and a psychic trauma can grow and develop into such a basic conflict that subsequently a deviation like transsexualism can result.

So something goes seriously wrong during development, which buggers their mind? Sounds like a genetic disease to me, still.

>Some people consider research into the "causes" of transsexualism to be based on the assumption that it is a pathology, an assumption that is rejected by many transsexual people.

Or is this you?


>>3799701
I was over simplyfying; a healthy mind cannot think it is something it is not. It is not healthy, for example, for an anorexic to look into a mirror and see a fat person.

One thing I never got and don't feel like looking up: how are penises removed and does what's left over look anything like a vagina?

Am I shit out of luck if i want a penis and a vagina?

>>3799728
No, that's perfectly normal, I'm told/

>>3799714
>I was over simplyfying; a healthy mind cannot think it is something it is not. It is not healthy, for example, for an anorexic to look into a mirror and see a fat person.
Why is wanting to change your body mentally unhealthy?

>>3799714
>a healthy mind cannot think it is something it is not. It is not healthy
why not? presumably someone would have a surgery and be content with their new body and physical identity and that would be the end of it. an anorexic would always see themselves as fat no matter how thin they were and would starve themselves to death. there is a clear distinction here.

Man, this controversy is so, so dead. I think most people currently in academia will tell you that the various identity theories of the 1980s and 1990s were a sort of misguided interlude, not that they were ever as much of a big deal as many of you probably think they were.

Queer theory influences mainstream literary study today in three ways. The thesis that identity is expressed in performance (regardless of whether that performance is influenced by biological factors or whatnot -- shit's just not relevant), the emphasis on affect, and the muted but ongoing interest in the history of sexuality. Caricature it all you want, but most people here don't seem to know their elbow from their asshole when it comes to what queer theory means today.

>>3799740
>>3799747
I suppose I don't really have any justification for it. I think about it the same way I would an Asian telling me he was infact black.

So fuck it, if they want to pay for an operation to change their bodies they can.

Sorry for wasting your time.

>this thread

Anyways yeah pre-defined gender roles are dumb and people should be able to do or wear whatever they want without being judged by society for it just because it doesn't match what's expected of them based on their genitalia.

>>3799751
Get a real job and a real degree, you faggot.

>>3798823
there is no proof
>therefore queer theory is valid

c'mon, you're not 14, are you?

>>3799751
>I am one person at one school, therefore I speak for what something means in all of academia today

>>3798833
But don't you see how that's looking at the problem and not the source? It's like buying a car with an empty battery and saying, 'aw shucks, it doesn't work. I better get a new one.'

There have always existed differences between men and women. A sexual organ is something you are born with. The biological differences between the two sexes cause differences in the chemistry of their organisms. This affects behavior and development.

Now if you were to say sexuality is socially constructed, I'd agree with you.

>>3799815
Yeah because your sexual organs totally determines whether you prefer wearing a skirt or pants.

>>3799817
I had to squint and re-read that several times until I realised where you are from.

>>3799815
So what you want to put your dick/have put in your is entirely environmental?

>>3799825
Where am I from??

>>3799810
I'm in the middle of my dissertation at a top-tier American university. I can't speak for all of academia, but I can speak for most everything that has currency in literary studies today.

>>3799833
I presume America, to call trousers 'pants'.

>>3799815
But humans don't blindly follow all biological impulses. I don't eat everytime I'm hungry. There's a social counterpart to how and when I eat. Meaning, not everything can be traced back to sexual differences alone.

Men may be more prone to do certain activities because of biology, but to extrapolate that to other activities (how they react to things emotionally, what they wear, etc) might be overlooking other factors (environmental) that people just attach to biology.

>>3799817
read my post again

>>3799825
yes

>>3799844
Of course, I never said sexual difference alone determines behavior.

>>3799844
'biological impulses' and the like are interrupted from actualization by the imaginary singularity of the ego; and by the time they're allowed into the conscious, they're disguised, or else consciously repressed (the super-ego and ego conflict emerges and castration occurs; the Law prevails). but in some cases the Law doesn't prevail.


you probably agree with all of this, only you say somewhat dumb things in your actual post

>>3799922
>you say somewhat dumb things in your actual post
>'biological impulses' and the like are interrupted from actualization by the imaginary singularity of the ego; and by the time they're allowed into the conscious, they're disguised, or else consciously repressed (the super-ego and ego conflict emerges and castration occurs; the Law prevails). but in some cases the Law doesn't prevail.

Because no one gives a fuck about queer theory who isn't a degenerate

>>3799167
>is for a lot of people.

You better be working on a subsistence farm. Because the world is certainly not the modern western farm for "a lot of people".

>>3799186

Did you have any questions that aren't loaded?

If you are unsure whether they are loaded, ask them.

This thread was just bait from the very beginning, there was never intended to be any learning going on.

>>3800174
subsistence/market farm What we call a truck farm.

>>3799367

How fucking old are you that you have to arrange literary school of thought into an exclusionary, hierarchical green text list?

Did you just get out of English 101 last semester or something?

>>3800182

Oh you've got a truck? I'm afraid that puts you out of the running for "most of the world".

>>3800206
"truck" is what we farm. It means vegetables and fruits. what you'd sell in a roadside stand or a farmers market. But yeah we have a truck. Plow with mules though, and drag an A-harrow with a borrowed tractor.

>>3800206
And wasn't the discussion about gender based divisions of labor? anywhere in the world?

>>3798788
Foucault was a fucking asshole.

>>3800252
C'mon, he wanted to abolish the age of consent, he wasn't such a bad guy.

>>3799714
>a healthy mind cannot think it is something it is not.

But they might want to be something they are not. Which is totally legitimate.