/lit/ - Literature

Judith Butler

Kathy Acker

bell hooks

Ernie Hemmingways

Weininger and Schopey

>>3134823
secretly wanted to be pegged hard by a woman

You mean you want to be a misogynist or you want to understand the ideology of misogyny?

>>3134862
op wants to read the fundamental texts of misogyny (hate of women) and misandry (hate of men)

>>3134861

Who doesn't?

American Psycho

>>3134886
he wanted to be dominated by a woman because when he was a child his mother made him dress up like a girl

this also explains his hate of women

stupid misogynist scum

>>3134898
That's very poor reasoning. Rilke was dressed like a girl as a child and he was no misogynist.

http://theabsolute.net/minefield/

go there. you're welcome

also read Otto Weininger, some of his stuff is on that site
they also have a forum

>>3134898

My sister used to dress me up like a girl and I love women. What think?

>>3134905
>i love women
What do you mean by "love"?

>>3134906

You actually think there's an answer to that question?

But I am a feminist.

>>3134862

I want to understand the ideology of it.

I'm interested in learning about why misogyny is treated as such a bad thing while at the same time misandry is seen as humor in mordern society. i.e. when you see a TV commercial of a man being physically beaten by a woman and everyone laughs.

>>3134904
>thinking

>but let's still latch onto outdated bullshit such as masculinity and femininity!

>>3134914
>i.e. when you see a TV commercial of a man being physically beaten by a woman and everyone laughs
Example?

>>3134921
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4JA4EPRbWhQ

I know he's an annoying faggot, but this is actually a decent video of his.

>>3134914
Well, you won't learn that by reading Schopenhauer.

People our age are more sensitive to misogyny than misandry because there is still exists a general, ambient, social-psychological power differential between men and women. This is the same reason ethnic nationalism is perceived as cool when it's the Black Panthers, but not when it's the KKK. Groups already in power, or at the "top" do not garner sympathy. This is changing though.

EG: http://now.tufts.edu/news-releases/whites-believe-they-are-victims-racism-more-o

>>3134927
>actually decent
>neckbeard starts rambling spitefully
>"bunch of cunts sitting around a table"

stopped watching there

>>3134931
>This is the same reason ethnic nationalism is perceived as cool when it's the Black Panthers, but not when it's the KKK. Groups already in power, or at the "top" do not garner sympathy. This is changing though.

>He thinks whites are in power, and not jews.


MY SIDES

>>3134927
Oh, I think The Talk is like loose women in the UK. That isn't at all the same thing as having something like adverts that show men being physically beaten by women for laughs. It's just titillation or entertainment expected of a conservative show, same for the reality justice show (or whatever it was).

Also, phwoar:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yDJUwzfA4r4

>>3134939
check your privilege immediately

>>3134921

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tebYr9fBf9U

>>3134944

>>3134948
>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tebYr9fBf9U
It's slapstick, I would tend to go with something like Ardono and Horkheimer's work on the violence in cartoons like Donald Duck. In this case, I would compare what's happening to something like Tom and Jerry or Sylvester and Tweety Pie: in each case in the adverts the typically dominant character has tried to exert their power by taking or trying to take something, like the animated cats, and so comes the fantastical side where the under"mouse" or "bird" gains the upperhand through violence. In this sense they're empowering and have a sense of justice.

>>3134927
I was reminded of this video just earlier this week when I was at work and a group of middle aged women were talking about a guy one of them knew who had serious infection from complications from a vasectomy. They were laughing and when I commented how terrifying something like that is for a man they only laughed harder. Then I said I was serious and they went quiet and didn't know what to say. I almost asked them if they would laugh at a woman whose genitals became seriously infected.

I'm definitely not one of those misogynist neckbeards who think society favors women, but I do believe that there are some double standards that men are the victims of and I don't think that it's okay just because men as a gender have traditionally held more power.

sage because my post isn't really relevant to this thread, which is dangerously /pol/ anyways.

>>3134914
>when you see a TV commercial of a man being physically beaten by a woman and everyone laughs

That's just part of the patriarchy that disadvantages men as well as women.

>>3134939

>>3135057

Such nice doublethink

>>3135069

That poster is correct. Patriarchy instills cultural aggression toward both men and women in the superstructure.

>>3134979

Seems cool, thanks.

>>3135057

Any recommends on where to start reading?

>>3135080
What is patriarchy? How does it instill cultural aggression?

>mfw I know I'm not going to get any evidence but I'm asking anyway.

>>3135131

Patriarchy is the cultural heritage of normative structures that involve an imbalance of power between men and women. It instills cultural aggression by its very nature as an inequable mode of thinking.

>>3135080

People still used outdated terminology like "superstructure"?

>>3135137

Only in the sense that it's applicable to praxis.

>>3135142

More like in the sense that it allows for the erasure of contradictory experience.

>>3135174

Your experience is driven by social mores.

The revolution doesn't need you, in any case. We're simply biding time.

>>3135131
Some bullshit we inherited from Christianity. Patriarchy a set of attitudes dehumanizes women; they are denied subjectivity. This can be readily observed all the time if you browse /fit/ or /pol/. Statements like, "women don't know what they want" or "she was asking for it" flow at a steady rate there and elsewhere.

>>3135136
Actually that's a pretty good argument.

>>3135182

People still have such uncomplicated top-down ideas about social formations and power? You should be ashamed. Go read your Foucault right this minute.

>>3135182
Not the guy you're responding to, but:

Sympathetic as I am, unfortunately I think you'll be biding until your death bed. Capitalism still has so much it can burn before we will see the pile of ashes. Good evening, however, comrade.

I intend to hasten the second coming of Chri-I mean Marx by consuming as much bottled water as possible though between now and then.

>>3135131
Look at the explanation in >>3134979
It justifies the violence as "empowering" or "justified" because it is done in the face of patriarchy. In a society where women are not the underdog as it were, this could not be the case.

>>3135188

Patriarchy - a system where the Patriarch is supreme head of the extended family. Think the Marlon Brando in the Godfather, or any true system of Monarchy. This was the norm in the entire world until the 1960s, still is the norm in about 90% of the world. Matriarchy is the opposite, and pretty much doesn't exist anywhere.

The problem with the feminist definition is that bullshit in the post I quoted, loaded with meaningless jargon like "denying women their subjectivity" which I guess means telling them what to do? Or not letting them get employment, which they don't need anyway?

tl;dr the Women's Studies circle-schlick is strong with this one...

>>3134905

Ideal non-Patriarchal woman-man. You may go forth and worship at the church of the vagina now.

>OP asks for specific texts/books to look into
>9000 replies later, still no suggestions

>>3136135
>a system where the Patriarch is supreme head of the extended family. Think the Marlon Brando in the Godfather, or any true system of Monarchy.

>>3136151
We matriarch now.

>>3136151

Curiously, Queen Victoria was pretty strongly against the advancement of women's rights.

>>3136151
>tfw female monarchs started taking the throne, so the patriarch government had no choice but to reduce the monarchs to shiny, golden figureheads.

>>3136151
that's not a matriarchy. that's a patriarchy with a female leader. get learned cunts.


the power structure was still based on men in control throughout the rest of society.

>>3136135
>denying someone subjectivity
>meaningless jargon

You didn't even skim the wiki article on Descartes? Please get a proper foundation in philosophy before deluding yourself into thinking you know what people are talking about, let alone criticizing their ideas.

>>3134797
Anything Nietzschean, fucker hated women

>>3136198
Also, Aristotle considered them inferior beings because they just lay there during sex. Obviously, he wasn't doing it right

>>3134931
but the Panthers are cool, intellectual Marxists with a good sense of style. The KKK is a bunch of drunken old honkies running around in bedsheets. The Black Panthers ARE cooler.

>>3136151
>a system where the Patriarch is supreme head of the extended family. Think the Marlon Brando in the Godfather, or any true system of Monarchy.
>or any true system of Monarchy.
>true

>>3136171

So explain how Patriarchy denies women a connection between subject and object, because I'm pretty sure that's not possible

>>3136219
>Marxist
>cool

Idiot detected. Also, calling the Black Panthers intellectuals is hilarious. Take a nig off the streets of the ghetto, give him a nightstick and a beret, and now you have the typical black panther.

>>3136676
>So explain how Patriarchy denies women a connection between subject and object, because I'm pretty sure that's not possible
Irigaray argues this, or something like it. I'm not familiar enough to talk about it, but my understanding is it's based on the idea that western language has a subject position for men that it doesn't have for women, like how "man" (which used to be gender neautral) has come to refer primarily to males, as well as humanity.

>>3136694

Well that's pretty ludicrous. So men are capable of knowing that the world around them exists but women aren't because language is vaguely discriminatory.

Since 99% of the population takes the connection between subject and object for granted, I fail to see how this is relevant to anything.

>>3134944
i love this shit

>>3136704
>So men are capable of knowing that the world around them exists but women aren't because language is vaguely discriminatory.
No, that's not what subjectivity means. I can only suggest you look at Irigaray

>>3136709
no, she is fat and ugly

>>3134797
>I wanted to get into the philosophy behind misandry/misogyny.

There is no philosophy behind it unless you're talking about dumb MRA shit which is simply an overreaction to the silliness of feminism.
'Patriarchy' is the natural state of affairs in non-primitive human societies; it arises from significant and obvious cognitive/physical/physiological differences between the sexes. The history of virtually every civilization bears this out. Postmodern Western society is an aberration and in many respects, an abomination.

>>3136676
That's not quite what I was arguing. Patriarchy reduces women to being simply objects. That is, they aren't able to speak, and if they do their thoughts are discounted. Hence statements like:

"Women are irrational."
"Women don't know what they want." (only men know)
"Women are emotional."

>Denial of subjectivity: The objectifier treats the object as something whose experiences and feelings (if any) need not be taken into account. (257)

http://www.jstor.org/stable/2961930

>>3134886
straight people