/lit/ - Literature

>gender studies

Worst studies, worst students, worst professors, worst...well...everything.

>>1525921
>>1525921
>>1525921
FUCKING THIS

it's a joke department

On a par with "business" and "economics"

Queer Theory is all about a funnel placed into an asshole, and a second whore pukes into it. After the ass is filled with puke, a cock then fucks it until the pressure is all built up. After the asshole has been fucked hard enough, the cock is pulled out and the anal cannon explodes! To top it all off, ass to mouth occurs, with both ladies licking off the fresh mix of vomit and ass for the ultimate Post-Feminism and Transhumanism.

>>1525921
This

utter waste of everything

Who's deleting my posts and why?

>"economics"

A top-ten economics/finance program can land you an analyst position on Wall Street without even getting a graduate degree.

I go to UVa. 25% of our Commerce School goes on to work at Wall Street firms, right out of undergraduate school.

Queer Theory/ Gender studies is fucking necessary--anyone who denies this also denies that they have genitals and that these genitals actually have an impact on their lives.

>>1527312
n/m
weird

>>1527329

>implying you need to know anything other than where the cock goes

Oh, gender studies students, why have you never contributed anything important or meaningful to the world?

>>1527345
Yeah the fact that you believe this is all you need to know indicates much about you. Most importantly is that you may know where the penis goes, but you won't know what to do with it once you get it there..

>>1527356
Cum as fast as possible and fall asleep?

>>1527356

So, tell me, what has gender studies contributed to the world?

Now tell me what people who don't really give a fuck about meaningless things and choose better paths of study have contributed to the world.

>>1527356
So it's about fucking?

>>1527557
>implying most people make a significant or any contribution to the world
That's a silly argument. Why are you guys so butt hurt about gender studies? Not all of it is completely out there unless you're completely against any humanities education.

>>1527567
Humanities can be and often are great.

The problem with gender studies is the basic premise, the fact that it's heavily influenced by post-modern literary theory, and the fact that one of its general conclusions is that gender and sexuality are fluid and can be greatly influenced by environment, therefore everyone is gay, potentially.

Finally, it's mostly a heap of institutionalized bigotry.

"Alienation has become a commodity that you sell on an academic market." [Note: This comment was made in response to universities and colleges "teaching" racism, reverse and standard sexism and such. This is the best coinage I've ever heard to describe this problem.]
- Stanley Crouch (on "Politically Incorrect")

I went to a college where gender studies was very, very important and discussed a lot. I don't know too much more about gender studies than the average lib arts college student because I majored in neuroscience, but it is interesting (at least to a mid twenties female), and I think you should check it out.

I'm sure that you can find out some names on the wikipedia page and check those names out, find some books, etc.

If you want you can ask me a few questions about feminism and I can tell you a little bit about perspectives in modern feminism, but yeah, unfortunately I'm not too knowledgeable in all of this stuff. And I won't respond to trolling "HURR THERE IS NO WAGE GAP" sort of thing.
Every once in a while a very ~edgy~ MIT boy would enroll in one of our classes seriously just to ask "questions" like that and it just really gets old fast.

Oh, and do you want a list of some sort of essential feminist texts? I have a list saved somewhere if you really are interested.

>>1527578
That opinion is largely based on a false representation of gender studies. While I agree that is the case in some cases, the field as a whole is not so.

>>1527578
>Finally, it's mostly a heap of institutionalized bigotry.
People can say this, and do, about any academic major.

>>1527593
>>1527567

So what has the field of gender studies as a whole contributed to the world?

Quit trying to weasel out of this.

>>1527621
I'm not weaseling. You can say that about almost anything. It's just a way of saying "look with engineering I can physically pick up this laptop, can art do that?!" It's not a valid way of judging academic pursuits really.

>>1527621
Gee, I don't know, women aren't essentially slaves to men anymore for one. Women couldn't even divorce men until the past forty years.

>>1527621
What have you ever done to justify your existence, fuck face? Gender studies creates interesting and provocative ideas..you on the other hand are a reactionary jaggoff

>>1527586
>Oh, and do you want a list of some sort of essential feminist texts?

Different anon, but that would be interesting, thanks.

Read this:

http://www.stanford.edu/dept/HPS/Haraway/CyborgManifesto.html

>>1527631

>implying gender studies caused that

>>1527629

So valid results aren't a good measure of success? Cool story, bro.

>>1527636

This isn't about me, it's about academic fields. Nice argument though. Typical gender studies student.

>>1527586
I would like this list!

Also I would like your reaction to my feeling that much (not even most, but it often comes up especially among beginners) of modern feminist discourse alienates potential allies by its extension of words like "sexist" to label such groups as the fathers' rights movement. Substantive equality is far more complicated and tricky to navigate than formal equality, and it seems to me that the accusation that anyone who is suspicious / critical of certain policies within it must not believe in equality is foolish and may be in part contribute to hostility against those who label themselves feminists. Thoughts?

>>1527656
you're the one making the argument? why do academics have to "benefit" the world at all? this is begging the question. There is no need for intellectual activity to "benefit" anything..it just is..we do it because we love to do it.

>>1527593
try to make your case - prove it

>>1527692

The whole point of academia is to better yourself and society.

All gender studies is is a big old circlejerk that doesn't benefit anyone.

The fact that you can't name one way it's benefited society proves that.

If you can stomach it, check out some Judith Butler. S Bear Bergman's "The Nearest Exit May Be Behind You" is a pretty good series of essays, and Julia Serano has some really good stuff on intersectionality with feminist issues.

>>1527715
That is what YOU interpret as "the point'' of academics..that is your opinion..it is not an *uncommon* opinion, but that makes it no less of an opinion..either way..academia =/= farming..I can't name one way in which anything has "benefited" society, because that is an over-simplification..most actions have positive and negative effects..quick example would be nuclear physics providing scientific insight but also atomic weapons...

>>1527724
NO DO NOT READ JUDITH BUTLER. she really sucks, and I like gender studies. I think gender studies has always been best represented by creative artists..people like Virginia woolf, Jt Leroi etc..

>>1527715
A third (arguably more) of advanced mathematics will have no real use either. No one really harps on mathematicians though.

So seriously,
WHATS THE DEAL WITH GENDER STUDIES

>>1527715

>All gender studies is is a big old circlejerk that doesn't benefit anyone.
Doesn't it benefit the trannies? They are made to feel like heroes for "sublimely incarnating gender liminality"

>>1527715
Plus I already said that Gender studies creates provocative ideas and that is beneficial to society--it problematizes behaviors and institutions which we take for granted and THAT benefits society..

>>1527743
>implying this hasn't been done by Hinduism for thousands of years...

>>1527748

>implying this hasn't been done by Hinduism for thousands of years...
It probably has, but gender theorists tend to disregard the accomplishments of patriarchal cultures.

>>1527663
Mmm, yeah I agree with you.

My issue with answering this question is my experience of feminism. I went to school during the emergence of fourth wave feminism (I do believe a new wave is showing itself right now)-- and as such was exposed to an environment very, very concerned with equality for everyone, and wanted to welcome and bring men into the activism of feminism and make their voices heard. Much of my experience of feminism is focused on the importance of men's voices. Here's a great, short video about the importance of men in the feminist movement that I think summarizes very well the most current perspective of what male involvement in feminism should be.
http://shakespearessister.blogspot.com/2010/12/my-liberation-as-man-is-tied-to-your.html

So, that's my bias. Admitting that men HAVE been prohibited from feminist discourse is difficult for me because of that experience. I feel like I have to be defensive of feminism because of constant attack. But that completely erases men's experience of feminism, and that's fucked up. I'm not about to erase your voice.

So yes, I do agree that much of modern feminism has alienated men. I think that for much of feminism's history that was actually necessary, but now that we've achieved so much, it's not fucking necessary at all, it just discredits the movement. There's actually a HUGE amount of conflict going on right now between "old" feminists and "new" feminists because of this taking on of a new, feminism is for everyone image.

Oh, and here's the list. Yes, it is from a magazine for lesbians. But please, please don't discount the comprehensiveness of this list because of its origin.
http://www.autostraddle.com/feminist-reading-43637/

>>1527757
they don't disregard them (well not the sane ones) but they simply state that patriarchal societies have had major problems and that these problems continue and that patriarchy is not the *only* way simply because it is the status quo..

>>1527743
>it problematizes behaviors and institutions which we take for granted
=
>mostly a heap of institutionalized bigotry

there, you said it yourself

>>1527745

What, you mean behaviors that were bred into us because they made us as a species rise above the rest of the animals?

>>1527730

cool way to weasel out of any argument, bro.

>>1527738

That's because math took us into space. I don't think worrying about someones privates has ever done that.

>>1527743

I'm not sure if you're on my side or not with the way you've worded that.

>>1527780
you are an idiot for thinking two different statements ever mean the same thing..lrn2differance faggot
>>1527782
>subjectivity
>weasling out of argument
yeah bro, just because I don't disagree..you simply have made no clear statement..all you've done is begged the question so how is a refutation even possible? it's not..that's the point of begging the question. you really don't know what you're talking about and everyone can see how pathetic you are. pathetic on 4chan and real life? an hero and respawn.

>>1527735
Yeah, she's not for everyone. I think she raises some important points about performativity, but those points have also been said elsewhere.
I'll add that I'm somewhat similar towards Kate Bornstein's work - it's trite and more than a little bit reductionist.
Also seconding the recommendation by >>1527771 of the Autostraddle list. There's a number of gems there.

>>1527795

from weaseling out of arguments to straight out attacking your opponent.

typical feminist.

>>1527782
Set theory never took us into space. You're ignorant of math and science too? Wow you're going for a world record here.

>also how is going into space helping starving kids in the third world? THATS NOT HELPING THE WORLD YOU ARE A MORON IF YOU APPROVE OF IT

>>1527771
thanks!

>>1527806
from begging the question to ad hominem
>typical weak opponent.

>>1527814
Not a problem at all!

>>1527810

The species as a whole > some starving kids in dirt countries.

Deal with it, liberal.

>>1527816

I'm still waiting on an answer for how gender studies has ever benefited society.

>>1527586
how do you feel about haha oh shit apparently she's blocked as a troll thread xD
how do you feel about Sacha Gray?

>>1527834

>I'm still waiting on an answer for how gender studies has ever benefited society.
It helps keep most of the university students suffering from advanced degeneracy in one place?

>>1527834
I already answered you: it forces us to reexamine things we take for granted--without this we would stagnate and there would be no scientific advancement, no political upheavals..nothing..you are looking for something nebulous as the benefits of "space travel" i can't help you..the biggest benefit of space travel is probably a few david bowie songs in my opinion so slag off.

>>1527855

So you're saying there was no scientific advancement before gender studies? Cool logical fallacy.

>>1527849

>more attacks against opponents of gender studies

well I'll bet you got straight A's from your feminist professor.

>>1527868
We didn't get to gender studies so quickly..but until people questioned the very nature of our existence, there were no scientific advances..all progress comes from a question..and that other kid was making a joke in support of your premise but you are too thick to notice.

>>1527771
Most gender studies are what Christina Hoff Sommers defines in "Who Stole Feminist" as "gender feminism" - which simply put is bigotry against men/males. Most everyone I know is an "equity feminist" (Sommer's term again), which is about equality.

Which is something you touch on. But I'd charge that you are still supporting gender feminism.
And re this:
>Yes, it is from a magazine for lesbians. But please, please don't discount the comprehensiveness of this list because of its origin.
Wouldn't you assume a reading lists from either "The Nation" or "The Weekly Standard" were biased, even if someone implored you to ignore that? srsly.

>>1527870

So what benefit does gender studies have over, say, the study of the atom, or dieases, or, well, pretty much anything else?

All I've seen come out of it is "HURR FIGHT THE MALE OPPRESSOR."

>>1527838
>haha oh shit apparently she's blocked as a troll thread xD
I don't know what you're talking about, sorry. Can you clarify for me?

>how do you feel about Sacha Gray?
Oh geeze porn, such a difficult topic to talk about. In all honestly, I have not been able to neatly reconcile all of my opinions about pornography into anything I could type out very well.
So I'll just tell you some random things that float around in my brain when porn comes up in a feminist discussion.
--Women should be able to embrace their sexuality without ridicule.
--Pornography, completely in my opinion, more reflects patriarchy and shows us the effects of patriarchy on us, than creates it. I believe Nabokov said something to the effect that pornography is the "copulation of cliches."
--The current pornography industry should be revised to be more woman friendly. It is not a coincidence that most women involved in pornography have been sexually abused, and I think that it is clear that being involved in pornography is not a very positive environment.
--This, however, is not because pornography is inherently negative, it is because pornography both inflicts and reflects patriarchy, and unless something is done outside of the institution to change the institution-- it will remain a negative environment that harms women.
--A more sex positive world would be fabulous.

I'd take some Queer Study classes but I'm not gay.

>>1527876
>study of the atom
nuclear weapons--atrocities
>study of disease
weaponized anthrax, biological warfare
>gender studies
some nice books that you might read if you're interested in that subject, and possibly a renewed attitude of respect for your own gender and that of others..

>>1527884

>gender studies
sexism against males

See? I can do it too.

>>1527876
Do you seriously disagree that for most of feminism's history that men have NOT been clear oppressors?
There's nothing fucking "hurr" about it. Jesus I'm a fucking man myself and even I'm not such a pussy I'm going to discredit that.

Re the Feminist reading list in te Lesbian mag: it includes The Scum Manifesto, which wa written by the woman who shot Andy Warhol and which calls for the mass murder of males.

>>1527891
>implying sexism against males is a bad thing
>implying i'm not a masochist
yeah you can't do it as good as i can.

>>1527901
How does that make it any less essential to the history of feminism? Wouldn't you say, if anything, that makes it even more relevant to the list?

>>1527892

Throughout history we've fallen into a pattern that was shaped by the environment we were in. Men hunted, women raised children. This is hardly oppression, it is (or rather was) simply the natural order of things.

Times have changed and now women have entered the workplace.

There is no need to "HURR FIGHT THE MALE OPPRESSOR" because no one is being oppressed.

>>1527912
You should read Enlightened Sexism.

I would urge our feminist posters and lurkers to take a good look at thinkinghousewife.com/

Expose yourself to those you despise. You may find that your enemies aren't quite the monsters you envisaged.

>>1527912
this post makes me want to SCREAM
both men and women are oppressed by these idiotic conceptualizations of the ''natural order'' ...btw science does not work that way..there is no "natural order"..if anything science reveals nothing but deviations from order..unless you are talking about the level of determinism which would not even indicate whether men or women would be dominant..which you aren't..because you are a fuckface..anyway..you have shallow beliefs and you don't realize that the patriarchy oppresses you just as much..that slow-to-progress gender roles have made male children the idiots in classrooms and that commercials where men try to cook yogurt in the toaster are a good indication of how completely detached men have become from anything noble in their gender..

>>1525921

This.

>>1527910
It is a list of recommended books. It includes aa book that advocates mass murder. Do I have to spell it out for you?

>>1527920
No current feminist, or any feminist on this thread, has stated a dislike of housewives.

>>1527916

I might check it out sometime. I've got quite a reading list already.

>>1527921

>capitalization
>grammar
>insults

Typical feminist.

>>1527921
>if anything science reveals nothing but deviations from order
Deviations from the perfect intelligible realities these material manifestations participate in. Read more Plato.

> btw science does not work that way..there is no "natural order"..if anything science reveals nothing but deviations from order

I don't want to sound rude, but what the fuck are you talking about?

>>1527923
It is a book that is essential to feminist history whether you like it or not. Erasing it from our history is worse than advocating people read it.
Asking people to THINK about the content of the text is not the same as PROMOTING THE IDEA OF THE TEXT.

>>1527912
>There is a less vehement need to fight for female rights because they are not oppressed in most modern and developed countries to the same extent they once were. The progression of equality is still an ongoing problem, sexism, like racism, has not been eliminated, but it's easily granted that it is not the torturous struggle it once was. In other areas of the world women are still treated as second-class citizens and it should be (and usually is) a primary concern of modern feminism.
ftfy.

It's like Feminism but with gay.

>>1527937
Ugh platonism=science now?
>>1527940
I'm talking about how people take scientific discoveries or ideas and pervert them in that pop-science way that the discovery channel,etc. has taught us..where people interpret evolutionary/genetic/biological data to mean "men are natural hunters" etc...science does not make these kinds of broad statements..they are unprovable.

>>1527928

>No current feminist, or any feminist on this thread, has stated a dislike of housewives.
The 'dislike' is implicit.
Housewives are almost always treated as powerless victims, or dangerously ignorant women to be held in contempt.

>>1527945
well, i was mad..but also that gender studies/feminism would assist males in self-liberation from confining and limiting concepts of their gender.

>>1527945

Well, thanks for rewriting that for me, I don't write in that fashion unless it's for a research paper.

I disagree with the need to worry about third-world countries, though. Let them be and advance in scientific pursuits. They'll benefit from that eventually.

If their women are that concerned about it they'll liberate themselves.

>>1527771
Thanks!

I think most of the recent conflict comes not from excluding men per se, so long as the men are in agreement, but the moment a man questions whether a policy is taking things too far in a certain direction, he is labelled antifeminist (or a troll).

It is likely that many of these men ARE trolling, or antifeminist, but those who do the labelling seem often to assume this as a default.

Example: a man who, in a discussion about rape shield laws and the like, brings up the possibility of false accusation. He is labelled sexist, antifeminist, as someone who assumes all women really do want to be raped and can't be trusted to choose for themselves, etc etc etc. In his mind, he's simply trying to figure out how to reconcile the issue with our legal system's official policy of presuming innocence until proven guilty, perhaps a fear made more salient to him because of personal history or the like. (A good friend of mine once seriously asked me if her ex boyfriend might be considered to have raped her, since she now realized she hadn't really wanted it. I asked her how it happened, and he never threatened or pressured her, and she'd EXPLICITLY consented. I don't think the majority of women would be so naive, but it scared me.)

The courts have doubtless taken false accusation into account, so we needn't worry as much as some men do, and it IS the case that the male voice has had far more air time so far and so trying to steer the discussion in such a direction necessarily takes focus off of the victims' needs, and something does need to be done to prevent this. But thinking they're necessarily trolls and / or sexists is not necessarily the answer. Perhaps a short, accessible, non-inflammatory introduction to key concepts (formal vs. substantive equality, negative vs. positive liberty, importance of air time vs. just internallyconsistentlylogical, etc.) and required reading before participating in discussions?

>>1527950

If men weren't natural hunters they wouldn't have been the ones doing all the hunting.

>>1527956
Third world countries have historically only been oppressed by scientific advances...

>>1527950

>Ugh platonism=science now?
Platonism encompasses the whole cosmic hierarchy.

>where people interpret evolutionary/genetic/biological data to mean "men are natural hunters" etc...science does not make these kinds of broad statements..they are unprovable.

You would deny that women are natural mothers?

>>1527954
No, it's not. You do not know what you're talking about. You're talking about feminism thirty years ago.

> science does not make these kinds of broad statements

>if anything science reveals nothing but deviations from order

That sounds like a broad statement to me.

>>1527966
Depends on what you mean by mother? Do you mean the sole caretaker of a child? Do you mean the domestic servant of her husband? They are naturally capable of bearing offspring..
And Platonism is important but we have come a long way from believing that our "reality" is a secondary emanation..at least some have..

>>1527965

>people have always oppressed other people with whatever tools they have at their disposal

fixed that for you.

>>1527967
i don't want to lose my afternoon to this thread but i just wanna say godspeed to you anon

>>1527881
The proper spelling of Sacha Gray (and that pic of her holding up Existentialism for dummies) has become a troll thread topic on /lit/ so i had to mispell it :p

>>1527973
well, with that statement I wasn't being scientific, just being observant..i mean..for fuck sake..you people watch too much national geographic channel..science is done by measuring data against a control in order to reveal a deviation from the standard..this is measured scientific progress..science does not 'nail things down' it does the opposite, if anything. ...

>>1527978
yeah was pretty much implying that, but being a bit more specific.

>>1527985

I don't watch television.

>>1527976

>we have come a long way from believing that our "reality" is a secondary emanation..at least some have..
Chronological snobbery

>>1527989

Right. And we can't avoid advancement because of the possibility of it being abused, because if we'd done that we'd still be squatting in ditches poking berries up our nose.

I have never watched National Geographic in my life.

> science is done by measuring data against a control in order to reveal a deviation from the standard

You really don't have a clue what you are talking about, do you.

>>1527995
yeah, you got me there..

>>1527954
You're inferring, it's not implied. Housewife is a perfectly acceptable position for a modern woman, the emphasis being _if she so chooses._ What feminism is about is that she is free to do as she wishes. You're ignoring the historic context of feminism, when most women had basically two choices: becoming a housewife or social ostracizing and poverty. These options had a few exceptions only in extremely rare cases, so please don't bring those up as an argument.
And this was not some far-distant time, this was up until the 60s and 70s... gosh, I wonder what changed that?

>>1527956
>I disagree with the need to worry about third-world countries, though. Let them be and advance in scientific pursuits. They'll benefit from that eventually.
You're ignoring the very real self-perpetuation of cultural power structures like gender roles.

>If their women are that concerned about it they'll liberate themselves.
Upheavals in social conditions have always required catalysts.
There's also simple ones like the woman last year who was going to be stoned to death for having sex out of wedlock.
And problems that few but feminists bother to say anything about, much less openly confront, like the sex slave trade which is doing quite well all over the globe.

>>1527976

>our "reality" is a secondary emanation.

Don't get your Butlerian knickers in a twist, but our 'reality' is a secondary emanation. Do you actually believe the human eye can see all manifestations of electromagnetism? (I know what you mean though).

>I'm talking about how people take scientific discoveries or ideas and pervert them in that pop-science way that the discovery channel,etc. has taught us..where people >interpret evolutionary/genetic/biological data to mean "men are natural hunters" etc...science does not make these kinds of broad statements..they are unprovable.

This is correct.

>Queer Theory/ Gender studies is fucking necessary--anyone who denies this also denies that they have genitals and that these genitals actually have an impact on their lives.

No. It is fucking pointless.

>>1527976

>>we have come a long way from believing that our "reality" is a secondary emanation

Yeah, you guys have done a great job of collapsing the once multitudinous levels of reality into one uninteresting morass. All hierarchies must go right? Thank you so very much.

>>1528005

>You're ignoring the very real self-perpetuation of cultural power structures like gender roles.

And you are overemphasising power relations and social constructions over biological realities. This is the classic Foucauldian move that all undergrad gender study morons make.

>>1528005
>You're ignoring the very real self-perpetuation of cultural power structures like gender roles.

It couldn't just be that these things are the ways we instinctively organize ourselves? Nah, that's just silly.

>Upheavals in social conditions have always required catalysts.

Such as...

>There's also simple ones like the woman last year who was going to be stoned to death for having sex out of wedlock.

If they don't rise up against that kind of thing then maybe they don't deserve to be free of it.

> And problems that few but feminists bother to say anything about, much less openly confront, like the sex slave trade which is doing quite well all over the globe.

Criminals are going to be criminals, that's hardly a gender problem.

>>1527963
I think that a lot of that reaction has to deal with frustration about having to answer questions like that, less than the gender of the questioner.
Questions about false reports of rape have long been accompanied by sexist undertones, and most feminists I know have seriously had to memorize all of these insane statistics about rape and how often it is reported in relation to other crimes. These statistics are generally delivered in a pissed off, get the hell out of my way tone.

So... yeah. I guess I'm saying I think that the main issue here is tone. Feminists who are asked these questions seem to usually feel that they are being oppressed when they are told that they should not be angry when responding to such questions, like they are being forced to fit into a mold and why the fuck should ze not be mad about rape, and the people asking these questions usually feel that the feminist is just being a bitch and not considering their pretty nicely worded opinions because ze does not have an answer and has never heard this question before.

So yeah! I think that this is mainly about inefficient communication. For feminists, particularly women feminists, being told that they need to calm down and that they are being hysterical is a very sensitive matter, for the people who ask feminists these typically over-asked questions that are generally a method of cutting down feminism, being persecuted is also a very real fear that feminists are often reluctant to appreciate.

>>1528016

>This is the classic Foucauldian move that all undergrad gender study morons make.

I love you

To all of you posters who have been making longish posts:
Thanks for being so thorough, it seems like you two conversing in the long posts are really think this stuff out, I wish that /lit/ was always in this form for me to read.

That said, jesus this is tiring to read, I think I've really developed a migraine. How the fuck anyone majors in this is beyond me.

>>1528040

>How the fuck anyone majors in this is beyond me.

No one does. The smart posts were done by those who didn't major in it.

>>1527586
In Canada the prostitution laws are currently being reviewed, and may soon be changed.

As they stand currently, prostitution is legal, but a number of things associated with it are not, including:
a) it is illegal to keep a bawdy-house
b) it is illegal to communicate in public for the purposes of prostitution
and
c) it is illegal to live off the avails of prostitution

these are the laws currently being reviewed. there are, of course, people who would have them held up (or prostitution itself made illegal) for right-wing reasons like "ew gross", but even among the sex worker community there is fiery debate. The biggest split among those who would protect sex-workers and women is this:

the laws, as they stand, make illegal all the practices which could make sex-work SAFER. It cannot be negotiated in public, since a bawdy-house is illegal worker's can't stay together and make sure each other are safe, meaning they might have to go into a john's house or car to do their work. The "no avails" law makes it even illegal to hire security.

the flip side is that, in particular the last one, these laws CAN be used to prosecute pimps of girls who aren't there by choice. Without them, it would be much more difficult to have a pimp charged without first having assaulted the girl; nobody wants to wait for this to happen.

My evaluation: the laws CAN protect women from being coerced into sex work by pimps, BUT once working it makes them far more vulnerable to clients (witness the missing/murdered aboriginal sex workers in Vancouver, and the pickton trials [he was actually just disposing of them for the hells angels by the way but they own BC so nobody talks about it]). Probably they should be abolished, and new regulations should be put in place, but I don't know what these would look like.

Thoughts?

The reason that most of the people in this thread are bashing gender studies is that most people in this thread have no issues with their sexuality or their gender. Gender studies is not useless. It's something to help homosexuals, transgendered people, etc.

>>1528039
Oh, and I'm sorry I neglected to mention that yes, I definitely agree with you that gender factors into this. (Would be such a bad feminist if I didn't, haha) There do seem to be different reactions to male and female askers of these questions-- I agree that people take on more of a witch hunt answer to males. Which definitely does need to be amended. I just, completely in my own opinion, find that these silly little nuances in diction that affect tone are extrapolated like mad and that tends to affect the ensuing conversation more than gender does.

I'm truly sorry for appearing dismissive of your opinion, I do agree.

>>1528069

>It's something to help homosexuals, transgendered people, etc.

Do you really believe this?

Gender studies is just another academic field. It has its own journals, and it has its own academics. It as useful as just about any humanities field (which means that it is essentially useless).

I guess the difference between gender studies and something like lit studies or philosophy is that gender studies is intellectually feeble. This is why even academics hate gender studies.

>>1528039
Yeah that's about it, which is why an acessible (starting from priors and concepts that a reader will already have) intro-handbook thing could be a very good idea (instead of having to answer and getting frustrated, they can just send a link?) Iunno

(also what's ze? just a gender-neutral he/she?)

>>1528086
I didn't feel you were being dismissive, but thanks :D
there's a lot in that list you posted, what do you recommend i start with?

>>1525911
biggest bunch of shit in the world

>>1528095

I mean can you honestly say that anyone working in gender studies today, is not a card carrying social constructivist of some type?

How can you even being to have a scholarly exploration of a topic if feminists call you an asshole for even mentioning biology or fixed gender roles.

>>1528069

Actually many gender studies have shown significant biological differences between men and women, hardly what feminists wish to be the case. Whether the methods are accurate is up to you, but to say gender studies necessarily promotes feminism/homosexuality kinda misses the point.

>>1528131
If anything, gender studies has called into question concepts like "men" and "women", to the point that to argue "significant differences" is at best pointless and outdated.

>>1528131

>Actually many gender studies have shown significant biological differences

Yea and I bet 99% of feminists look at that research and dismiss it as positivist garbage belonging to the male heterosexual matrix or to a merely scientific and hence 'male dominated' discourse.

>>1528131
Actually, no. Person who majored in neuroscience reporting in. A lot of my work is actually proving how neuroscience has constructed this, and more proves the effects of societal constructions on the brain, than actual biology.

Agh, I'll explain later, I'm in the process of steaming some vegetables and I'm VERY interested in this topic and would love to discuss it more in depth with you in a few minutes, I just wanted to let you know that I will reply in greater content.

Oh, also, Canadian prostitution person, I have an answer for you too! These veggies really need attending too though. :)

>>1528148
To add to this, two recent books on the subject reviewed:
http://www.newscientist.com/blogs/culturelab/2010/09/fighting-back-against-neurosexism.html

>>1528131

>Actually many gender studies have shown significant biological differences

Yea and I bet 99% of feminists look at that research and dismiss it as positivist garbage belonging to the male heterosexual matrix or to a merely scientific and hence 'male dominated' discourse.

>If anything, gender studies has called into question concepts like "men" and "women", to the point that to argue "significant differences" is at best pointless and outdated.

How is this not just more social constructivism. You can efface difference only if you ignore scientific categorisation (which I assure you is a reality).

When feminists attempt to disregarding the male/female it is usually for some post-structuralist reason which defies sense (Buter is a partly good example of this). And Irigary represents the opposite I would guess.

>>1528160
>How is this not just more social constructivism. You can efface difference only if you ignore scientific categorisation (which I assure you is a reality).
I assure you it is arbitrary.

>A lot of my work is actually proving how neuroscience has constructed this, and more proves the effects of societal constructions on the brain, than actual biology.

Herpa Derpa neuroplasticity. derpity.. I can see it now: "see how we embody gender roles at a neuronal level" Herpity.

You know that it is pseudo-science yes?

>>1528164

>I assure you it is arbitrary.

Prove it.

>>1528172
First, back up your argument. I have used the same level of proof to refute your arguments as you have used to make them.

>>1528148

Sorry if I worded it wrong, but the gender studies have shown significant biological differences in neurological makeup in both adults and children. Whether or not those differences are culturally instilled or hard-wired is extremely difficult to do research on in a humane fashion.

Look at the works of Leonard Sax (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leonard_Sax).). Why Gender Matters is a fantastic book. If you're trying to help people that actually exist, like troubled teens, it doesn't matter if differences are "hard-wired" or cultural, just that they exist.

>>1528146
But that's the fault of feminists, not gender studies. Gender studies can still foster understanding of how men and women interact and can help children suffering from developmental problems.

Holy shit this thread is pretty gross. Full of self-victimizing men.

>>1528177

>First, back up your argument.

OK.

There is clearly a biological difference (even at a neuro-chemical level) between human animals. The ones that have this configuration we call women. The ones that have this other configuration we call men.

It is fact that we are physical systems that responds to various stimuli. Different physical systems (again lets say 'male') will respond to stimuli differently, from another physical system (lets call it 'female).

You see what is going on here? We are differing physical creatures at a physical level. And our physicality cannot, I repeat, CANNOT be ignored when talking about human behaviour and response.

To ignore our physicality is to play the social constructivist game and ignore science by overemphasising our role in categorisation. Nature is always already carved at its joints. We name it, however we do not create it. Welcome to positivism.

Everyone I have known who has studied it fitted the stereotype of the raving, angry, lesbain, bitch feminist.

>>1528131
Alright, so I totally agree that there are some slight differences in the overall anatomy of males and females. Not so much in brains though. Going to just outline some points about neurosexism.

1. It is stereotypes that are these neuroscientists are seeking to prove-- such as that men are less empathetic than women. Then, any differences that show up in tests and scans are shown as "proof" that this is true. However, can we really say that traits like empathy are fixed in the brain? I can't find a reputable neuroscientist that will say so.

2. When men and women are put in these sort of actual situations that require an exercise of empathy, there are no differences among sexes. Test performance hardly ever differs in well thought out experiments.

3. By well thought out I mean experiments that do not rely on making subjects aware of their gender. There have been many, many experiments proving that when men and women are made aware of their gender-- they self-restrict as according to the stereotypes specific to their culture. For example, when women are made aware of their gender on math tests, they perform far, far worse than when they are not made aware of their gender (i.e. it is not a question on the exam).

4. Brains are shaped by experience. In cultures with more equal gender roles, brains are very similar between genders. In cultures with gulfs in gender roles, brains are more different.

I hope that's sufficient for you to kind of get where I'm coming from, and trust me what I'm telling you reflects pretty common ideas in neuroscience right now. I'm currently in my final years of getting my Ph.d, have read way too many articles, and this is the running theme.

>>1528215

I think I said physical too much. I was making a point though.

We are not elaborate social constructions living in a make-believe world of cultural fantasy. Maybe people ignore this.

>>1528215
I see you constructing arbitrary and vague categories. What decides that one group of attributes belong to men and the other women? And what stops some individuals from having attributes that belong to both groups?

>>1528215
Positivism doesn't necessarily imply what you're saying because you're relying on a skewed view of genetics/biology/neuroscience. You ignore brain plasticity, gene-environment interaction, and so on. It's an argument that can go either way scientifically although it seems to be trending more towards the opposite of what you're saying based on current research especially in biology and genetics.

>>1528220
100% right. As >>1528237 mentioned most average people walking around have a skewed view of the brain thanks to popular science magazines. Most of the newer research (especially genetics) has shown that Mendelaean genetics is a flawed viewpoint. This is also closely related to neuroscience. Unfortunately I think a lot of the problem is newer models of thought are a lot harder to explain than something like "when you are born you have a gene that says you're going to be this smart for the rest of your life"

>>1528168
Convenient for me then that neither Wellesley nor JHU factor your opinion into what is and is not science.

>>1528220
>>1528237
>>1528244
Any of you dudes able to recommend any books/literature you've come across, if it's not too much trouble?

>>1528230

>I see you constructing arbitrary and vague categories.

You are thinking of 'attributes' in a purely cultural way. I will admit that finding universal cultural attributes is difficult matter. Finding physical attributes however is easier. I'm talking about physical attributes. I'm also making the point that physical attributes help determine behaviour and action.

We are not cosmic exceptions to the universe. We are subject to entropy and physical laws. There is not just a 'physical' dimension to reality and a 'cultural' dimension to reality. It is all ultimately physical.

As for categorisation. None of it is arbitrary. We discover the world, we do not create it. It there wasn't the physical manifestation of something approximating 'male' and something approximating 'female' then there would be no male/female binary. However the binary itself attests to physical difference.

You can disagree with the validity of the binary in terms of biology (in which case you are doing science) however you cannot disagree with the binary on purely cultural terms. If you do, you are a cultural constructivist. And you have already lost the game.

>>1528220
see
>>1528182

If you're looking to do gender studies as a way to explain why things happen the way they do (in the real world) culture plays a critical role. One of the main aspects of modern culture is a heavy emphasis on gender-consciousness; just look at standardized testing, for example.

Abstracting outside of culture, while scientifically interesting, doesn't allow us to actually work with struggling individuals who need psychological treatment. They are two different areas of gender studies which allow advances in different fields.

>we are on 4chand
>and /lit/ is feminism turned from a troll topic to two assholes discussing Foucault and constructions and shit

impressed you ass hats kept up conversation for long though.

>>1528256
I've picked up most of my knowledge from just talking to biology professors and taking classes so I'm not sure what book to recommend. Although a great book that will make you think twice about believing a lot of biological "studies" is The Dialectical Biologist.

>>1528244

My point ultimately quite simple. I don't even need to know what the current science suggests.

I'm just saying that we are physically determined. And we are NOTHING BUT physical entities. There is no special meta-physical substance that makes us something other than carbon based information processing systems.

Hence there is no 'cultural world' and then some non-relating 'physical world'. There is only the physical world. And physically there is a difference between male and female. As anyone with eyes could tell you.

>>1528258
I think you're just missing that environmental factors (including society) have a large effect on the PHYSICAL body.

>>1528258
>however you cannot disagree with the binary on purely cultural terms. If you do, you are a cultural constructivist
That there is no such thing as a cultural binary, I disagree with that. But how we perceive gender isn't the same as how tend to physically describe gender (what's the difference between a convincing trap and a woman?), and I can't see how it's either rigorous or valid to talk about a biological binary.

>>1527940
/sci/ here.
I cant speak for him, but Ill try to give an example.
Lets say you live in a small town in Canada, the main produce of that town is apples.
Now all these apples are red, you exept this asthe natural order and everything continues as it always does.
One day, a farmer finds a reen aple growing on a tree, you have never seen any apples other than red ones, so this is quite an event.
Is the green apple "unatural" in any way?
Of course not, it may be strange, but it isnt unatural.

Lets aply this to gender, say a boy wants to be a girl.
He isnt unatural in any way, jusu difreny from the norm.
Same with an cavewomen that hunts, leaving her husband to clean and care for the children.
Its not unatural, just diffrent.

When a guy puts on a dress and takes hormones, or a girl becomes CEO of a company, or two people of the same gender fuckeachother, nothing unatural has happened.

>>1528256
Agh, I can't think of many appealing novels about this sort of thing that are too scientifically accurate-- a lot of them like to lure in readers by using ridiculous studies and making radical claims... I mostly just read textbooks and journals.

I haven't read much more of it than excerpts that students have shown me, but apparently The Mismeasure of Women by Carol Tavris is interesting. It's apparently accessible and interesting enough for 18 years olds here, so... Perhaps check that out?

>>1528281

I don't give a fuck about the phenomenology of gender. How we 'perceive' gender on a day to day level does not matter.

Unless of course you want to say that our sciences are somehow biased because we live in a culture and we perceive gender a certain way etc etc.. (in which case enjoy your self-refuting Quinean web of beliefs bullshit).

>>1528310
Also would like to note that I've had equally as many men approach me about this book as women. I do not think that it is geared only toward women.
Agh, I really should read it.

>>1528322
if you don't believe science taken as pure objective rationality is biased then you're a fucking moron

>>1528322
I guess your problem is a combination of being a positivist and not being educated in modern biology. I don't really know how to help you man.

>>1528322
> I don't care about X, thus X does not matter
wow you're a fucking moron

>>1528287
That metaphor is totally strange. Because green apples ARE natural, but what if you got a BLUE apple? would you dare to eat it? would you consider it a "normal" apple?

However you are totally right, considering that everything is ultimately natural. But that doesn't justify anything.

Also, good thread, although mindfuck on a huge scale. You neuroscientists really make me wonder but i'm still skeptical.

>Abstracting outside of culture, while scientifically interesting, doesn't allow us to actually work with struggling individuals who need psychological treatment.

This is typical academic dogma.

For you truths about reality must always be holistic and 'human' instead of cold and scientifically 'inhuman'. You clearly don't care about 'truth' properly understood.

Instead you are a pseudo-intellect who is more interested in doing politics (i.e. helping homos and dykes) instead of trying to actually work out what is actually the case.

I hate this fucking humanities attitude toward science "Herp science is an abstraction" what is real is "culture". It is clearly too complicated for you to realise that no such distinction exists. We don't live in 'culture' we live in space and time.

Pain = c-fibres firing. You follow?

>>1528341
>>1528341

No. I'm simply saying that 'how' we perceive gender is irrelevant. The phenomenology of gender produces descriptions just as much as science. The difference being that science is semi-reliable and phenomenology is not.

>>1528358
>doesn't understand why subjects like medicine and engineering are not sciences
You're missing some basic knowledge there.

>>1528358
I just don't understand why so many people are caught up in this cult of scientism like you are. That's more of an academic dogma than what you're saying (although I might be skewed because I'm studying Physics).

If you study science AND fully explore the philosophy of science I find it pretty hard to have your opinions. Not that I'm a full on scientific anti-realist or anything, but to believe science as real "truth" is just silly.

>>1528356
>You neuroscientists really make me wonder but i'm still skeptical.
You have a good thought process then! Curious but skeptical is a very good combination. Haha, I very much approve, if that means anything at all.
This is actually probably one of my favorite threads ever on /lit/, a very lovely discussion.

>>1528337

>I guess your problem is a combination of being a positivist and not being educated in modern biology

I think your problem is you fail to see that I don't need to biology in order to make my point. If anything I'm appealing to physics over biology.

>>1528374
Even the science is not free from "perception" and "phenomenology" in the case of gender.

>>1528358
Too bad we still don't understand pain (see: contorted phantom limbs and many other cases), and it is not so simply reduced as you apparently believe.

>>1528393

You are a skip and a jump away from a self-refuting position. Please follow through with that thought.

>>1528358

Did you even read what I wrote? I advocated that kind of science as a part of gender studies but not the entirety. Purely theoretical work can be just as enlightening and gamechanging as other research, it just tends to take longer to pay off (see quantum computing). On the other hand "real world" research like that done by Fax has immediate benefits for treating troubled people.

Heck, I'm one of the people arguing against gender studies as an artifact of the feminist/homosexual agenda, considering it has clearly shown that in the real world women and men do respond differently to many stimuli in many situations.

>>1528399

So in principle it is not reducible? Do you really want to say that? Some meta-physical quasi-physical remainder escapes reduction? Is that it?

>>1528273
>>1528310
Thanks guys. Also, if there are any textbooks you can recommend, I'd appreciate it. I work in a medical library so I should be able to find them. I'll check out both of those books tho.

>>1528391
You're not appealing to physics either though. You'll have to clarify that. Do you believe in determinism? Is that what you're getting at? I don't see how that would cause you to disregard biology or have your beliefs. Or is it that you believe physics contains a perfect picture of reality and everything else is meaningless? I'm feeling there is some flaw in your train of thought that I'm not picking up, but could you clarify?

sociology is just applied psychology
psychology is just applied biology
biology is just applied physics
physics is just applied mathematics
mathematics is just applied philosophy

philosophy is the only TRUE study, faggots

everything else is trickled down

>>1528400
Enlighten me.

>>1528386

>cult of scientism

I have studied the philosophy of science. I see nothing wrong with stating that everything is in principle reducible to the physical.

Problem? How is this scientism? And if this is what passes as scientism these days, then I guess I'm in defence of scientism.

>>1528422
Philosophy is applied linguistics.
Linguistics is applied sociology.
oshit.jpg

>>1528435
Because I don't see any reason to believe that we have now or ever will reduce physical laws into science that is meaningful or fully understandable or perfectly correct.

>>1528410
You seem to not understand reductionism. If you don't know it, look up the analogy of a mousetrap.

>>1528412

For the benefit of not just reading books advocating one side of an argument, which most people tend to do far too often, I'd also recommend Why Gender Matters by Leonard Sax. Exercise critical thinking on which sources you trust more. It should be an easy read, too.

>>1528441
>implying linguistics is not just applied mathematics, which is just applied philosophy

>>1528435
and this folks, is why environmental issues will never be solved, because of retards like this kid that has no idea what he's talking about

>Do you believe in determinism?

This much is obvious. And yes I privileged physics over biology.

>>1528434

I'd rather see you walk into it.

>>1528456
Maths works by logic.
All rules of logic are derived from language (therefore language has no logical basis)
Therefore maths is derived from language.

Although, if there is a valid argument for your points, that's also cool. The more complex this web of dependencies the better.

>>1528468
Can't walk into anything if the argument is going nowhere.

>>1528474
>Maths works by logic.
>All rules of logic are derived from language

>implying "1+1=2" is not something that is true independent of language

Eventually, evolutionary literary criticism will take over the universities and destroy the pseudoscience that is rampant in English departments around the world.

>>1528449

>You seem to not understand reductionism. If you don't know it, look up the analogy of a mousetrap.

No please explain it to me. How is everything not reducible to the physical? As I said do you think there is some meta-physical remainder? Some different type of substance that is irreducible (i.e. the human)?

>>1528489
>retard detected

>>1528483
1+1=2 is heavily dependent upon a particular framework. A super simple example: There exist number systems in which 12+1=1

>>1528474
>>1528474
>>1528474

O shi. We have a logical positivist among us.

>>1528490
because reductionism is not "everything is reducible to the physical" AT FUCKING ALL

just stop posting you're fucking clueless

>>1528490
Having all the components of a mousetrap (a spring, block, lever arm etc) tell you nothing of mousetraps and do not describe all mousetraps (like the tilting box, humane ones). In this case, reducing something down to its component parts hasn't explained everything.

>>1528497
nah

when you put one body with another body there will always be two bodies

>>1528491
Yeah, evolution is obviously retarded.

>>1528513
>put words in others' mouth
>defense mechanism

>open thread
>ctrl f judith butler
>3 found

Only three?

>>1528511
There's a framework of "bodies". It's no longer some abstract concept.

>>1528497
1+1 is how the world works. Any other number system is an imaginary framework made by academics for academics, and exists only on a campus.

>>1528524
12+1=1 number system describes a 12 hour clock. It's quite a common introductory example in abstract algebra.

>>1528515
You're basically calling me a retard for saying evolution explains everything. Which it does. Natural Selection is THE theory of everything. If you want to argue that our minds aren't our brains and our brains didn't evolve, you can go ahead and do that. But you'll be arguing against a literal mountain of evidence suggesting otherwise.

>>1528503
>>1528503

Sure it has. You are still thinking in terms of culture. There is not 'more' to know then that which is physically knowable. A mouse trap just is its components. Whatever 'functions' you want to drape over it doesn't change the fact that it is a fucking mouse trap.

What will you pick up next? Qualia?

>>1528538
How else can you think of a mousetrap but "in terms of culture" (whatever you mean by that)? It's exists to fulfill a cultural need; to get rid of certain vermin.

>>1528538
>retard detected

Wait, okay, I'm fucking confused. Who here is for gender studies, and who here is for against? I'm trying to follow all these fucking arguments and it's getting really crazy.

>>1528509

Also by 'doesn't explain' you mean 'doesn't explain' in terms of culture, and in terms of use etc..

Protip: Existence doesn't conform to the criteria of intelligibility stipulated by 'use'. You seem to think we are doing epistemology?

But there are only two genders. Biology says nothing about a third gender.

>>1528552
I am in favour of gender studies departments because it keeps those people busy, up in their heads and out of the real world.

>>1528552
I'm for any field which has criticised the social sciences so well.

>>1528560
>retard detected

biology says nothing about gender at all because it only says things about sex, retard

>How else can you think of a mousetrap but "in terms of culture"

In terms of physics.

>>1528561
>my world is the only real one

kk

>>1528565
Nope.

>>1528566
>implying applied physics is not based on the individual's agenda

>>1528558
But what else is there to explain about a mousetrap? While it's great that there's a spring, it tells you nothing of catching mice.

This is a really basic, highschool level example too, and is really something you should be looking into yourself if you want to talk about it.

>>1528560
>But there are only two genders.
Gender theorists try to argue that a person's biological sex is completely independent of their gender (gender being a "social construction" or whatever).

I took a theory class last semester, and I get the impression no gender theorists have ever studied biology. They really should, because everything I read rejected any degree of biological determinism outright. (I'd be interested to see if there are any gender theorists who do look at biology, though. Anyone know of any?)

>>1528558
>implying anything exists in our terms independent of epistemology

>>1528582
gender has to do with identity has to do with psychology

>>1528558
>implying a mousetrap exists without there being first the idea of a mousetrap

>>1528588
>masterbatingly implying human thought is significant enough to shape the nature of the universe.

>>1528578

You can call it a mouse trap, you can call it a giant fucking hampster, it doesn't matter. It exists. And the condition of its existence is that it is physical.

It does not exist 'for us'. It exists independent of us as physical matter. You can call it whatever you want, what we name it doesn't matter.

My point was that 'everything' is ultimately reducible to the physical. The mouse trap analogy is fucking stupid because it confuses existence in terms of culture with existence in terms of physics.

>>1528605
ok, remove your brain, then tell me if anything still exists

oh wait you can't because you wouldn't exist

>>1528613
>It does not exist 'for us'. It exists independent of us as physical matter.
Mousetraps do not exist independently of us.

>>1528605

...........
...................__
............./´¯/'...'/´¯¯`·¸
........../'/.../..../......./¨¯\
........('(...´...´.... ¯~/'...')
.........\.................'...../
..........''...\.......... _.·´
............\..............(

>>1528613
'everything is reducible to the physical'

then explain to me why numbers relate the way they do

explain why physical laws exist as they are, and not in any other way or with different numbers which still balance

>>1528635
explain 'existence' in itself

what does it mean for something to exist? there are certainly no physical parameters that can distinguish between existence and non-existence

god you're fucking dumb and narrow

faggot

>>1528626

If we all vanished tomorrow. Mouse traps would exist. And they would exist independently of us. If we never existed, what 'we' call mouse traps would still exist physically in terms of matter (not in terms of components, such as springs, levers etcc but in terms of matter).

>>1528613
>implying electrons are physical

>>1528649
someone needs to educate this child

>>1528635

>explain why physical laws exist as they are, and not in any other way or with different numbers which still balance

This is a good question. Physical laws clearly exist. I'm willing to say they exist physically. Hence I see no problem in saying that everything that exists does so physically.

>explain 'existence' in itself

How about I don't?

>>1528644
I'd like to point out the dramatic irony of you accusing someone of being "dumb and narrow" when you are only trying to use reason to defend your thought-is-all-there-is position. You appear to be on the defensive because of how emotional your responses are. Please try to understand this other anon's view that the universe exists interdependently of humans. You can repeat the same question of "yeah but how do you know?" all you want, it won't get you anywhere.

>>1528524
1+1 are concepts like any other. Its only inherently true because we set it up that way. You could have 1+1 = many or whatever. Mixing up our own mental systems of orders and the natural world is rampant, like our belief of apples being green/red vs a blue apple, they're both naturally derived. I've been reading a lot of Alan Watts lately, especially the bits about our ideas of organizing a wiggly world into straight lines for ease of categorization.

>>1528658

Go for it. Why is this wrong. You will have to do better than an ad hominem.

>>1528669
>implying that throwing fun and light insults around on a board called 4chan is me being emotional while you continually beg the question and riddle yourself with broken preconceptions and mis-attributions of definition

>>1528668

physical laws exist physically? clearly they don't, clearly they only exist in the relation found between physical things, and this relation is extra-physical and you can't explain it in physical terms

you also can't explain existence in itself, which is also extra-physical

dodging questions is hardly a sign of confidence in your argument

>>1528674
It's funny when someone wants to point out fallacies when they make a claim "everything is reducible to the physical" and then say "prove me wrong, else, I'm right" as if they do not themselves have the burden of proof

hey look amidoinitrite? GOD EXISTS PROVE ME WRONG

>>1528674
If you've ever played the game mousetrap, you know that a "trap" can be built from all kinds of ridiculous things (if you don't know this, think of the "better mousetrap" Ruby-Goldberg machines in Tom and Jerry). The trap only exists because humans perceive it as a trap, it is only built because humans want a trap. Without humans, they wouldn't be built, nor would they be viewed as mousetraps.

Perhaps a simpler way to look at it: I can put the components into various isometric configurations without building a mousetrap. What can a hard science say about which configurations are mousetraps and which are not?

>>1528691

This is intriguing anon. I will say this. I think you might have misunderstood what is meant by physical. I mean by physical everything that is 'in' the universe. That which conditions the universe is a part of the universe. I'm not comfortable with the term extra-physical but I'm interested to take another look.

>>1528714
very well, but this is why you can't simply say 'everything is physical' because there simply is not enough knowledge about what the universe is, and until then when we say 'universe' we are only saying 'what we think qualifies existence by the standards of our findings and limitations'

there is no reason to disbelieve, for example, that the universe is not just an atom on a cow or something just as bizarre

there is nothing to explain existence in itself as far as what qualifies as existence

while 'everything is reducible to the physical' is worth the practical application, it is not immutable nor consistent with truth

>>1528711

I don't disagree. I think you are missing the nuances in my position. I said that ultimately 'and in principle' everything is reducible to the physical. Including mouse traps. You seem to want to say that we don't learn anything interesting from physical description. And I'm saying the criteria of intelligibility for what 'is' and what 'is not' does not depend on 'use' or what something 'is' for us'.

You are still thinking in anthropocentric terms. When are talking about 'what is', culture or the framework of what is humanly knowable does not come into it. I'm doing metaphysics not epistemology.

>>1528737
>>1528737

Agreed,

>>1528738
>I'm doing metaphysics not epistemology.
>metaphysics
>beyond physics
>"everything is reducible to the physical"

now that you've contradicted yourself, will you now agree that 'everything is reducible to the physical' is false, or at least not justifiable

>>1528755

>implying that I'm not working with a naturalised metaphysics.

Herp derp.

If I were not working within a naturalised metaphysics I wouldn't of said anything science.

>>1528738
I was explaining the analogy of the mousetrap in reductionism, nothing more nothing less. And, no, reducing a mousetrap down "to the physical" still doesn't tell us anything about mousetraps. And, lol, accusation of anthropocentrism when we're talking about a mousetrap.

>>1528755

>beyond physics

I might just add that you have a pretty vulgar working definition of metaphysics brosef.

Well, this thread has convinced me that gender studies people need to be given a final solution.

>>1528769

>I was explaining the analogy of the mousetrap in reductionism

Yes and I tried to explain to you why the analogy was wrong headed.

>>1528763
political ideology exists, is significant, yet is not physical.

a bunch of neurons fired in people's brains and caused them to think about politics until it averaged out into a commonly shared idea

then, this idea over time manifests as culture, which is nothing but ideas that are passed down

this culture that now exists is now existing independently of the neurons that fired in people's brains which first created this culture's ideology

>>1528783
Well, good luck with that Sisyphus.

reality is not axiomatic. 1+1=2 is true, and always true, eternally true, not derived over time from the axioms of set theory. it is always true that at 6:36 on this day there was a dude typing this and the binary code represented symbols which coincided with what my brain-states perceived to have meaning.

if we all died tomorrow, "mousetraps" would exist in that the quarks and electrons would still be configured in the arrangement that yesterday we would have perceived as a mousetrap, but to consider that level of organization to be significant when there is nobody to perceive it as such, is quite questionable.

>>1528784

neurons are physical.

it's more self-perpetuating than existing independently.

this is 4chan. why has nobody mentioned memetics?

also can we archive this?

>>1525921

The funny thing is this whole thread existed just to prove this guy right.

>>1528787

Physicalism is a pretty common position brosef. Have fun with social constructivism though.

>>1528797
I know they're physical.

But the neurons create connections and relations which affect the world, and these connections and relations go on to exist independently of their physical bodies (ie: neurons)

so while something extra-physical like ideas are created only by physical means, they continue to exist as corporeal entities independent of physicality

>>1528792
>it is always true that at 6:36 on this day there was a dude typing this and the binary code represented symbols which coincided with what my brain-states perceived to have meaning.
It is the 21st century, universal time does not exist (thank you relativity).
>if we all died tomorrow, "mousetraps" would exist in that the quarks and electrons would still be configured in the arrangement that yesterday we would have perceived as a mousetrap, but to consider that level of organization to be significant when there is nobody to perceive it as such, is quite questionable
>but to consider that level of organization to be significant when there is nobody to perceive it as such, is quite questionable
>consider
>significant
>questionable
>there is nobody to perceive it
There would be no considering, significance or questionability if we died out tomorrow.

>>1528805
the only thing this thread proved was that people are ignorant, culturally conditioned, and know nothing about gender studies

>>1528809

No.

If there were no more neurons left, the idea would vanish as well.

>>1528814

Typical feminist self-righteous whining.

That guy was right, women are cunts, deal with it.

>>1528822
typical retards don't typically bother me or anyone else since they're retarded

but please do go on,

retard

>>1528809

>they continue to exist as corporeal entities independent of physicality

Supervenience mother fucker. Look it up.

>>1528827

>hurp a durp women good men bad women good men bad

>>1528808
>Physicalism is a pretty common position brosef. Have fun with social constructivism though.
Physicalists aren't reductionist. Reductionist isn't to do with social constructivism any more than physicalism.

>>1528358
>>1528358

ALL TIME GREATEST POST. WHY DID I JUST JOIN NOW.

ARCHIVE THIS SHIT

>>1528833

>Physicalists aren't reductionist

>Physicalists aren't reductionist

Only physical things exist
Not reducing

Are you serious?

>>1528837
>implying physicalists don't buy into concepts like emergence
It's not the 19th century.

>>1528830
>typical retard who thinks feminism = women good men bad

>>1528358
lrn2 memetics
lrn2 extended phenotype

>>1528844

>implying that isn't what it amounts to

Allow me to play doubles advocate here for a moment. For all intensive purposes I think you are wrong. In an age where false morals are a diamond dozen, true virtues are a blessing in the skies. We often put our false morality on a petal stool like a bunch of pre-Madonnas, but you all seem to be taking something very valuable for granite. So I ask of you to mustard up all the strength you can because it is a doggy dog world out there. Although there is some merit to what you are saying it seems like you have a huge ship on your shoulder. In your argument you seem to throw everything in but the kids Nsync, and even though you are having a feel day with this I am here to bring you back into reality. I have a sick sense when it comes to these types of things. It is almost spooky, because I cannot turn a blonde eye to these glaring flaws in your rhetoric. I have zero taller ants when it comes to people spouting out hate in the name of moral righteousness. You just need to remember what comes around is all around, and when supply and command fails you will be the first to go.

Make my words, when you get down to brass stacks it doesn't take rocket appliances to get two birds stoned at once. It's clear who makes the pants in this relationship, and sometimes you just have to swallow your prize and accept the facts. You might have to come to this conclusion through denial and error but I swear on my mother's mating name that when you put the petal to the medal you will pass with flying carpets like it’s a peach of cake.

>>1528842

Kitcher, Davidson et al can suck it. The average physicalist is a reductionist. Deal with it.

>>1528848
FUCKEN SAVED

>>1528850
>because the removal of institutionalized gender identity which advocates neither good nor bad but rather the capacity for individuals to identify themselves = women good men bad
>retard detected

>>1528848
>>1528848

>>1528853
>The average physicalist
How about respected physicalist?
Acceptance of complexity theory ftw

>>1528867

Yeah that's what the bitches told you.

You think they won't turn that shit around and shit all over men once their period comes around?

Fact facts, man, you're either brainwashed, self-hating, an idiot, or just plain lying about your beliefs in order to get pussy.

>>1528882
or you're an anti-academic retard who lives on false preconceptions

>>1528882
>>1528908
Shit's going down.

>>1528908

Nope. I support the study of real academics.

What you support is the superiority of gays and women.

Gays and women didn't give us the technology we have today. Real academic pursuits did.

>>1528921
I like how people think 'disagreeing with others in a stupid manner' amounts to trolling

stop trying
stop posting

Archive thread !

http://4<remove>chana<remove>rchive.org/brchive/main.php?mode=submit

Select /lit/ and request: 1525911

P.S remove the <remove> from that link

>>1528921
technological rationality
yawn
typical stupidity

>>1528932

No troll.

I must have hurt your butt pretty bad for you to just give up like that.

Better talk about how you were being oppressed at the next rally. They'll all cry with you and tell you it's okay and then you can all talk about how evil men are.

>>1528939

Don't like it? Go live in a cave.

>>1528941
>implying I'm the person you were arguing with

>>1528947
he can probably say the same about feminism

ITT butt hurt chauvinists unable to comprehend the absolution of predefined gender roles

>>1528955

Well, forgive me for not being able to tell one person from another on an anonymous imageboard.

>>1528961

Feminism didn't bring us out of the caves. Science did.

>>1528970
>implying feminism didn't bring women out of the caves of objectification, which is half of the human population

>>1528970

>Feminism didn't bring us out of the caves. Science did.

Nah bro. We let them collect food for us. This enabled us to hunt and invent shit. We have technology because we gave women the right to collect nuts and shit.

Those stupid cunts let it go to their heads though. Just because you can collect nuts and suck nuts does not mean we are equal.

Amirite?

>>1528970
>Feminism didn't bring us out of the caves. Science did.
If by science you mean religion, then yes.

>Anyone read this sf novel?
>Science fiction is not literature.

>what y'all think of queer theory??
>276 posts and 13 image replies omitted. Click Reply to view.

I'm depressed /lit/. Seriously depressed.

>>1528984

I'm a man of science who is also a man of faith. If you were attempting to troll me you've failed.

But the truth of the matter is that it was the discovery of early weapons, the taming of fire, and the invention of language that jumpstarted civilization.

>>1528982

Hear, hear.

>>1528980
>>1528980

>out of the caves of objectification

Yea women started objectifying themselves. We don't even need to whip you anymore, yet guys just do it to each other now. Feel good man.

We once had to withhold food from you cunts so you wouldn't get fat and embarrass manfolk. Now you starve yourselves. How does that liberation taste bitch?

Nothing tastes as good as thin feels? Amirite?

>>1528989
The sci-fi short story --All You Zombies-- deals with issues of gender.

>>1528989
join the rebellion for good posters/non-phonies.

>>1528995
and this is why /lit/ will never amount to anything but a bunch of bored retard kids trolling

>>1528995

Suffered from bulimia all my life. You are an asshole.

>>1529012

Hahahahahaha did fatty feel too fat? Guess what, you are fat and disgusting, no one would ever want you.

>>1529012
you need a strong man to help you through this difficult time?

ARCHIVE THIS FUCKING THREAD NOW.

>>1529029

Why? It's a piece of shit.

>>1529025
>>1529027
lol

>>1529012
jesus christ lighten up. why would you even read this thread unless you wanted to be trolled? maybe you should go pick up a book.

>>1529012
How does one "suffer from" bulemia? Like the finger impulsively goes down your throat, or what?

>>1529012

>mfw she's now cutting herself and crying while gorging herself on food

>>1529077
mfw you get trolled and dont know it


:O

>>1529086

nope

Very interesting thread....very interesting.

bumping epic thread.

rebumping.

those vegetables done steaming?

>>1529981
Yeah, I left as soon as the thread devolved into this crap about mouse traps.
Did I miss a question of yours? I'm sorry, I'm tired as hell and this thread is really long... If you copypasta or link back to it then I'll try to answer it. I'll leave this thread up before I go to bed and refresh in the morning.
/lit/s slow as fuck.

>>1530259
Canadian prostitution guy here
>>1528065

Saving you from page 15. Live long and prosper.

FUCK YOU!!! WHY CAN'T I BUMP THREAD??