/lit/ - Literature

>>18089967
If I was 14 I would reply with a "based" but I cannot help feeling nauseated by this post in a fashion not dissimilar to seeing OP (typical gender constructivist or some such position). My disdain for modern feminist theory goes without saying; however, I feel as if I should explain why your post is so trite and insulting. First and foremost, you impose and ideal upon that you do not, and never will, espouse. My contemporary males, those who are so quick to tell you how their position is in the slums, fighting wars, or in statecraft are corpulent, weak fellows; yet, they fancy themselves akin yo those who fought in the trenches of Flanders. They are so obviously repugnant, weak, flabby—unlike the men that they aspire to be. Their proclamations of valour and combat are naught more than a particularly hasty gilding of what the untrained observer supposes is gold. As if this wasn't enough, you tell >her that feminity is the glory of mankind. How utterly preposterous and baseless your virtue-gender distinctions are, how easily can one see through your veil when you proclaim men are more reasonable as if virtue isn't tantamount to wisdom, as if virtue can be attained at all in a consequentialist paradigm. You charlatan, speaking in the same manner I would use to speak to a golden retriever: "your purpose is to fetch and because it coalesces with my desire to throw, you are noble."

Yes, I think I see: the position of the conservative is as nauseating as the liberal because they both use gendered language for their own genders benefit; that is, rather than teaching what we know to be true—that virtues are absolute, attainable through wisdom, and consciously willed—they divvy up virtues arbitrarily and assign them to genders unbeknownst to them they delegitimize the very concept of virtue itself.