/lit/ - Literature

>>7023052
is this our generations big question? gender equality? wake me up when some chinese savant invented FTL, i dont want to live here anymore.

>>7023052
the problem you're articulating is endemic almost all Marxist critique after Stalin

Why don't people stop talking about the negatives of poverty and just solve it already?

I can't tell if I'm being baited so if I am 5/10 I'm minorly irate.

Most of the big names are aware of this "problem" and they refuse to come up with positive solutions because they're extremely committed to their quest against power relations, so much that they refuse to offer any positive solutions out of principle because then they'd be enforcing a dialogue in which one narrative stands above all others, kind of reversing the whole issue which is no good.

>>7023064
How so? I'm genuinely curious, I don't know much as you can probably guess

>>7023077
Except poverty necessarily includes limited resources that can only ever be solved with actual labor and acquiring currency.

Social matters are not really dependent upon goods so there's a lot more freedom

>>7023052
There are elements of truth to what you're saying. Things like you're suggesting were more common under First and Second Wave feminism, perhaps in just a few examples, but enough to have laid the foundation of the point. The areas that seem to experience the most actual willingness to change are those areas which *do* by law bar women, - government or structural roles come to mind- when their contention is, if the woman can prove herself, she ought not to be barred.

I believe a good degree of that 'elbow grease' attitude would be beneficial to modern feminism. In my opinion that would be a substantial boon to the increasing community of women in the work force. The issue, at least from a US perspective, is that many modern feminists grew up in eras where the predominant message was that these wrongs, racism, sexism, misogyny etc. were already in fact on their way out, not just on an institutional but societal level, and that's not been the case. The difficulty is in getting them to understand that, as with any matter, there's a definite degree of personal investment beyond attending protests and twitter-slamming someone that one ought to make to further their goals.

Then again we're on a Congolese BLIT replication IRC server, so what the fuck do we know?

>>7023052
There's also that ever-present frustrating factor, which is every person's idea of what the words 'gender equality' means or would even look like is in some way colored by their experiences just enough that no two are strictly alike. There may be no unique variations on the concept and how one perceives it, but to be certain there are at least as many as there are schools of feminist thought, which is an appalling number.

I mean, hell, people can't agree on a rigorous, all-manners definition of equality yet, let alone gender equality.

>>7023052
why do you guys care about this shit? it may be ubiquitous across media but that doesn't mean you have to engage with it

you bring this misery upon yourselves

>>7023052
>>well, NOT LIKE THAT!

Women don't know what the fuck they want.

>>7023052
> to say how things should NOT be but not how they should be, ever
The issue here is that they are fighting normativism and prescriptivism. The very source of these prejudices is the generalization and the thought that people ought to be a certain way. If they were to tell you what to do, they would be doing a disservice. If anything, the very goal is to demolish prejudices and replace it with a non-normative approach: asking, giving the other a voice, etc. Or, for example, drop the gender check box in forms (unless medical, they are really irrelevant).

>They hope that once men see the (in their opinion illogical) roots of their sexism they will change it and stop it, but suggest no replacement.
Replacement for sexism? Nothing. Remember they are not asking for privilege, but for rights. There is no special treatment to be developped here, just the basic right of not being discriminated.

>since they believe this equality is real?
Equality is not something out there, it's not a question of something that can be real or not. That's why biological arguments or things like that don't matter the slightest. Why would one deny the right of another? There is no justification, no reason why not to treat others equally outside of this inertia that preserves the power with those who already have power. The thing that in the case for sex is called patriarcy.

>if it's not intentional sexism...
Intention is a problematic term here. The fight for equality is not a fight to change intentions, but to guarantee rights. Of course intention plays a part here, but you have to understand that what makes it a good or a bad intention is relative too. On woman's day, people hand out flowers to women with the best intentions, as if that had anything to do with feminism, which is almost a "thank you for staying in your place", without them even realizing. Ideology works beneath the level of intentions. To say that one must work from intentions to the outside, is to say that equal rights can only be achieved if men approves it. It's better if you have good intentions, but whether you intend it or not, they will fight for you to respect them. That's why it helps to point it out, it may help some and not others on changing their intentions and visualizing how prejudice works from underneath ourselves and is playing us too, but either way, the attitude must be changed.

>INSIDE sexism/"the patriarchy" and give living proof that women are capable
Working from inside? To sustain it? No, this is a good strategy for those in power to remain in power, to ask for partnership here, but deny basic rights there. And there is no need to prove women are capable, that implies that it is a matter of deserving these rights or not. You're still thinking in terms of "why should we respect them? are they doing something to deserve my respect? why aren't they asking me about this?"

>>7023289
> the very goal is to demolish prejudices and replace it with a non-normative approach

this is insanity. the world functions because of prejudice

>>7023289
>You're still thinking in terms of...
No, not really.

This is a good post and I must thank you for it. The point was simply that in instances such as the book one it makes little sense to point out that the way people behaved was based in sexism. Intention was not the right word, I think I mean conscious. It's unconscious sexism, and I'm not entirely sure how pointing it out helps anything. It's ingrained, and making it visible doesn't seem to me (personally, of course) a solution.

I expressed myself poorly when it comes to work from the inside, also. It was more about less whining, more action. I'll think this more thoroughly now.

>>7023289
lotta buzzwords, not much substance

The genders are not equal. Humans are sexually dimorphic.

While it's true that women were underestimated in the past, it's remains true that males have a unique set of inclinations, abilities, and aptitudes that very rarely appear in women, if at all.

Males, for example, are all but required for any organization. Females seem to be incapable of collaborating without males. If you doubt me, just look around.

Females get very nervous when males establish male spaces because, on some level, they know that males are capable of many things females aren't.

For females to shine in collaboration, they have to "blend in" to male institutions. They can't make their own.

I'd love to be proved wrong. I'd love for females to make their own things and stop nagging males and let us have our glory, but I think they just can't. Too bad.

>>7023295
To pre-judge things is one thing, to retain your judgement no matter how false is proves to be, or even unknowable, is stupidity. The world doesn't "function because of" it

>>7023295
Yes, I agree to certain extent. Precisely because I think some people make a differentiation between what is prejudice (pre judgement) and what is just judgement, as if there was a point that I could say "I know you, therefore I'll treat you in this way". But consider that there is an endless cycle there that can be broken and that could lead to good things.

Say you're robbed 4 times this year by a black man. Hence, when walking down the street you go to the other sidewalk to avoid crossing a black man. This is understandable, but it doesn't make it not racist. Later on in your life you have long forgotten about these events and you're in a position of power, you can hire either one of two people, they have similar curriculums, but one of them is black, so you go for the other, perhaps, without even noticing it has an effect on you. These small attitudes reverberate in all levels, in the example, the black man is out of a job. The accumulating of these attitudes can produce more criminals, more black criminals and more reasons for you to fear them. You'd be risking yourself (in your mind) if you did not go to the other sidewalk, or if you hired the black man instead of the white, but you'd also have an opportunity to ressignify your perception of black people, diminish the weight of those assaults you once suffered and perhaps get the better employee for your company.

I wouldn't say we should or could live without prejudice (it's not a slippery slope towards that either) but, if you defy your prejudices, if you risk giving it a chance, if you go against the odds or against your fantasies of what the odds are like, in small windows of opportunities such as that, you're helping them not in not being that which you fear about them.

>>7023052
But your attitudes toward women derive essentially from stereotypes. How will you know when "women deserve respect"?

>>7023315
Whether it is conscious or unconscious is also debatable, they are vague concepts indeed and each person has a say on them, but I think they suit this better indeed.

Here the question becomes whether it is good to bring "unconscious sexism" to light or not and I think it is. It may not be "the solution" (is there such a thing?), but it puts the cards on the table and open up the discussion that can bring possible solutions. As said, ideology works from underneath our intentions, we take them not as relative or our opinions, but as things that are obvious. When I point out to you that this way in which you act is not obvious, that I object to it, I take it to an uppermost level in which we are debating two ideas. It ceases to be an ideology, because you're pushed to justify it and therefore, to seek reasons for your actions. If one believes that there is no such reasons, then this is the best strategy to make the other realize it.

If you stay quiet about it, you let it happen and you let it happen without no one knowing (not even the person who is doing it).

> It was more about less whining, more action.
This is also a problematic point. Whose to say the difference between protesting and whining? Those who are in power will always call it whining. Also, whose to say the difference between speaking about it and making a move? Isn't discussing this or bringing this forth as a problem to be discussed also a way to act on this problem?

>>7023325
"Buzzwords" and "substance" are also buzzwords.

>>7023334
sure. there's a million things for me and most young people to be less prejudiced about though. social justice is boring and atm attracting a lot of morons

>>7023333
>to retain your judgement no matter how false is proves to be, or even unknowable, is having the courage of your convictions

ftfy

>>7023368
>there's a million things for me and most young people to be less prejudiced
Yes, like people. That's a good place to start.

>social justice is boring
Justice is boring indeed. But it's justice.

>>7023383
na books are better tbph

>>7023315
>The point was simply that in instances such as the book one it makes little sense to point out that the way people behaved was based in sexism.

It does, because prejudice is often subtle when it comes from age old traditions.

>It's unconscious sexism, and I'm not entirely sure how pointing it out helps anything. It's ingrained, and making it visible doesn't seem to me (personally, of course) a solution.

You have to be aware of a problem to even begin changing it. What do you think the first step in avoiding a cognitive bias or logical fallacy is? Awareness.

>>7023052

That "experiment" could very well be completely false. There was zero evidence she sent anything to anyone. I'll let someone more knowledgeable of experiments tear it apart, I don't remember the points.

I mean, there could be a prevailing attitude, idk, but that article sure as shit didn't prove anything.

>>7023368
>social justice is boring and atm attracting a lot of morons

I highly doubt you would be so dismissive of social justice if you were suffering against ills like police brutality, income disparity or fearing sexual assault in virtually every urban area.

>>7023404
na don't think so. I would probably try to improve my individual situation as best as possible, never been big on solidarity tbh, which is partially why i'm on a turkmenistani wild pig-rustling emporium right now

>nothing to gain from equality
God forbid you help another person out without getting something in return.

This all ties back to Simone's idea that in our society females are the negation of males. She would literally hate all of these entitled middle class girls who pander to Tweens. They only negate while never purposing solutions. Simone realized this trend and instead called for women to create an identity for themselves, that is the true road to equality.

Progressives can't set concrete goals, and hence, ironically can't ever make progress towards them. If the chairwoman of the national organization for women or lead darky of the NAACP said something to the effect "do this and sexism/racism will be solved," they'd look like real fucking idiots when we reached the point and it wasn't solved.

Also, there's the fact that progressives like "progressive" as a label. A conservative is just a progressive plus time, and conservative is the worst thing anyone can be. Hence, they gotta keep upping the ante. Nothing will ever be good enough, and that's by design. If their actions don't make sense to you, their not supposed to.

>>7023289
It's "problematic" to apply such broad abstract concepts like ideology to actual living beings. I think a human is incapable of acting within subtext, or if not incapable at least it plays such a pithy role it's not worth discussing. You can't dissect a human interaction with rhetoric like an academic paper, it describes less the person than it does the person doing the describing. A man can strike up friendly banter with a woman on his way to work. The reasons for this may be numerous and frivolous, maybe he likes striking up conversation with strangers, maybe when he was young he would spend time before school talking to his sisters in the kitchen, anything. As soon as you talk ideology you pick two small elements, that being the man and the woman, you separate this and then imply this to be the core of the interaction and also that the interaction is based on one singular irrelevant notion. This is an external will imposing their power on the interaction, the interaction has lost all meaning and the players denied their freedom and agency to become puppets to another's worldview. In short, it's bollocks and shut up.

>>7023758
There is no applying of broad abstract concepts anywhere, they are not applied. And they are not broad either, they are specific, specific to the relationship between men and women (or white and blacks, hetero and homo etc). That's why when you say it implies a separation, a reduction to this one point, you're missing that none of this is describing a "core to the interaction", on the very contrary. The belief that there is a core to it, a center to this dialogue or an essence of being to each other is precisely part of the discourse that raising these questions seek to put into check. There is no such thing, because the interaction can be understood through several angles. So it is not being said here that a particular moment of discourse is "at its core about" man and woman, but that it is ALSO about man and woman, as much as every little attitude that we take in relation to another accounts for all the various ideas that involve us, power relations, prejudices, experiences, motivation, intention. Every attitude of ours is a political attitude. When someone (man or woman) is thinking about something, talking about something, acting in some way, but in the midst of it, that person is also perpetuating some discourse that weakens the other and that may have been caused by ignorance towards this other, isn't this other going to point that out and question that attitude? Even if it is about a myriad of other things also, can't one work on this aspect of it? And what would make that other person entitled to focus on a given portion of these daily attitudes? To say "it is not about sexism, it is about books" or whatever else? It is about books, indeed, but no one is saying these attitudes are "about" sexism, just they are coming through sexist discourses.

>In short, it's bollocks and shut up.
Desperate to end the argument, aren't you? No wonder you're so afraid of the other responding you. The other is not under your control, anon, neither it should be.

>>7023052
No, you're thinking of an article where a particular person did that.

The methodology on that query experiment was terrible. First off, the sample size was small enough - a handful of publishers - that it could have just been random; it's not unusual for your book to just get rejected a lot. Second, she could have easily chosen presses that are more competitive when she was submitting under her own name, and presses a grade down, or more niche, the second time around, when she was submitting under another name.

>>7023295
This. Trying to construct a non-normative society actually results in a society where the norm is extreme skepticism and everyone is floundering in existential malaise or throwing themselves into crass hedonism because nothing is real.

>>7023052

>>7023061
>chinese savant
It'll be the Japs you fucker.

You messed up when you assumed that internet activist movements have any higher political goal or construct in mind aside from self-preservation.
True 3rd wave feminists are dedicated to closing the gender gap where it makes sense to, such as in salaries and wages, but then allow women and men to stay in improved traditional roles.
Internet "feminists" only desire is to continue the political discourse as long as possible without conceding any ground, so as to keep their movement economically successful.

>>7024097
>closing the gender gap where it makes sense to, such as in salaries and wages

But that wage gap has been thoroughly debunked. Why bring it up, when it isn't true?

>>7023052
An entertaining thought for your minds:
Gender studies is considered 'science'. A scientific study - by default - includes an hypothesis, results and conclusions.
Example:
We have a hypothesis, lets call it 'A'
The results presented discards 'A' in favour of another outcome, lets call it 'B'
Conclusions, naturally, claims that 'A' is incorrect in favour of 'B'

Gender studies, on the other hand, are built up on the conclusion that there is a patriarchy and that men are favoured over women, so gender studies look abit like this:
"Hypothesis" (conclusion) favours 'A'
Results from the study discards 'A' in favour of 'B'
Already made conclusions then discard the results in favour of the hypothesis, 'A'.

Results that are not aligned with the faulty hypothesis are discarded and ignored, whereas results favouring the hypothesis are accepted.

And this is education folks, funded by the government in alot of countries

>>7024210
It's not considered science. It's considered empirical. Empiricism has been used interchangeably with science for a very long time, but that's clearly stupid.

thanks Mr. Eme Toad

being a man and being a woman are different experiences.

there are benefits to being a man and also drawbacks. there are benefits to being a woman and also drawbacks.

feminists want everyone to focus on the drawbacks of being a woman while ignoring the benefits, while also focusing on the benefits of being a man while ignoring the drawbacks.

take "street harassment" for example. the focus is on how annoying and uncomfortable it is to get constant sexual attention. a lot of times it probably is uncomfortable. there's one drawback. what is ignored is the other side of the very same issue, the benefits women have by being far more socially and sexually desired than men. only the top 5% of men are as sexually and romantically in demand as the top 60% of women.

>>7024225
In my langugage "gender studies" is called "gender science"

>a massive sperg about how the results don't prove sexism
Troll harder

>>7024250
And? This changes anything?

/lit/ is for the discussion of literature.

If you want to talk about politics, go to /pol/.

>>7024104
I simply mentioned an example, I haven't thoroughly researched feminist doctrine and it really isn't necessary to in order to see the difference in internet bandwagons and true social movements.

>>7024272
shut up tumblr bitch

>>7024299
>to in order to see the difference in internet bandwagons and true social movements.

The problem is that the internet bandwagons are the true social movements.

>>7023329
I guess nurseries aren't a thing then

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5tuf59ex-U0