/lit/ - Literature

As a dog, humanism seems interesting to me. What's the best humanist literature?

pic related

Feminism is bad, here's a start:

http://www.fisheaters.com/garbagegeration.html

This. If you've read Sartre, Beauvoir is no problem.

The Myth of Male Power: Why Men are the Disposable Sex

Beauvoir and Barbauld

>>3450753
This is for theory, if you want literature from a feminist perspective go Edgeworth and Perkins-Gilman for a start

Sex and the City season one through seven.

>>3450747
This was a very nice read.

>>3450787
>not watching Sex and the City 2 /lit/ related boogaloo instead

>>3450803
But I actually like Girls

>>3450803
WOW THEY ARE CHIC ENOUGH TO HAVE TAO GLENN
THIS SHOW AFFIRMS MY WORLD VIEW AND PANDERS DIRECTLY TO MY NEET LIFESTYLE

Simone de Beauvoir, Judith Butler, Susan Sontag, Monique Wittig

>>3450815
Apparently they wanted to put a different book on the shelf in that shot, but they couldn't get the rights to the one they wanted so they just put Tao Lin in there since it was lying around and nobody would care.

True story.

>>3450820
>having at least three copies of eee lying around
I can only aspire to such decadence

Intercourse by Andrea Dworkin

>>3450736
you totally have to be in camo gear to shoot a dumb bird. yep.

>>3450736
Post-graduate level: Society for Cutting Up Men versus Dallacosta

Undergraduate level: Simone de Beauvoir versus Suffragettes.

protip: women will not sleep with you even if you pretend to be on their side.

>>3450943
That's some butthurt right there.

Women, like men, respond positively to respect and interest. You probably try to talk to them about feminism and shit, which just bores everyone.

On topic, The Feminine Mystique (Betty Friedan) is the founding work of second-wave feminism

just read the second sex. forget anything else for now.

>>3450736
Personally I enjoyed How To Be A Woman by Caitlin Moran. She's a British comedian, the book is absolutely hilarious, and it hits some damn good points. It's a really easy read, too.

>>3450943

Hi Joss. When are you going to let me skull fuck you?

Definitely Virginia Woolf stuff. She's one of my favorites.

Not the biggest fan of her, but I hear Dorthy Allison is a big authority on feminism.

bell hooks

Feminism Is For Everyone

is the best introduction

As a middle class white male, I was never particularly interested in feminism, but I read a piece that was explicitly feminist and pretty amazing, in the context of researching Foucault's later work on ethics (which is pretty sexist). It was "Foucault's History of Sexuality: A Useful Theory for Women?" (Amy Richlin), and in between showing how fucking horrible Foucault's work with the ancient sources is, she writes gems like 'Why does this man have his own adjective?'.

>>3450787
wow

>>3450736
Read some men's rights blogs.

Speculum of the Other Woman

>>3450959
>Women, like men, respond positively to respect and interest.
>men respond positively to respect and interest
>people respond positively to respect, rather than confidence and good looks.
>all that naive humanism
>2013

ahhahhhaahahahahaahhahahhhhahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhaha.
thanks anon
youre a funny dude

I am a men's liberationist (or "masculist") when men's liberation is defined as equal opportunity and equal responsibility for both sexes. I am a feminist when feminism favors equal opportunities and responsibilities for both sexes. I oppose both movements when either says our sex is THE oppressed sex, therefore, "we deserve rights." That's not gender liberation but gender entitlement. Ultimately, I am in favor of neither a women's movement nor a men's movement but a gender transition movement.

>listing 60 year old "feminist" works
De Beauvoir was a misogynist. Read something new.

>>3451226

That's called egalitarianism.

Hi. I'm a privileged, white, middle-class women, and I'm looking for an enemy figure.

>>3451226
You're an egalitarian or a humanist. No point calling it a masculist.

>>3451322
Simone de Beauvoir is literally the only worthwhile feminist i've ever read.

>>3451234
>misogynist
Haha what?

>>3451322
Are you sure you aren't a privileged, psudo-hispanic, middle-class woman, who wants her french literature returned to her?

Virginia Woolf. Stay far, far away from contemporary feminism. It's basically conspiracy theories about "the patriarchy" being responsible for all of women's unhappiness. Virginia Woolf just wanted women to be able to vote, and go into other various male spaces where women were forbidden before.

>>3451005
Seconded.

Except that actually it´s called Feminism Is for Everybody.

The feminists are big on the body, get ready for it.

Female Flesh Under Capitalism by Laurie Penny.

Modern Feminism.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GOaP9NNcY

>>3451359
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oj96E3fJw

>>3451365
I like how two middle class white people derail a debate about racial prejudice into a shit throwing festival about money, while a black guy sits there completely silent.

>>3451373
One derailed you fuck hat. And that was Miss Penny (what a suitable name).

>>3451365
>>3451373
Told.

>>3451365
I don't understand why you guys keep posting this link. I don't understand why this clip is news worthy. I don't understand why anyone should care about this, whether British or nor, whether feminist or not.

>>3451375

Huh? How can you say she derailed it, when it was the other dude that started pitching a hissy fit?

>>3451383

BECAUSE DAT FEMINIST GOT TOLD XD

>>3451383
Because it details the privileged, white, feminist, pseudo-communist, middle-class, eco-friendly, trust fund babies that are dragging our generation in to a seething pit of narcissistic over-entitled decadence.

It's the tumblr warriors and the middle-class, super-skinny-latte drinkers that whinge and whine about irrelevant issues, chain themselves to trees, believe themselves to be entitled to everything because they were brought up in front of a televisions, stuffing fast food into their face holes and living a life of despicable opulence.

When one of these intolerable little shits gets shut down, it means nothing, they will win in the end, but it's still a minor victory.

>>3451386
>How can you say she derailed it
They were talking about gender discrimination in relation to the 'British identity', and that little anti-capitalist starting poking the guy about his tax status for no reason.

>>3451401
“Nothing was ever in tune. People just blindly grabbed at whatever there was: communism, health foods, zen, surfing, ballet, hypnotism, group encounters, orgies, biking, herbs, Catholicism, weight-lifting, travel, withdrawal, vegetarianism, India, painting, writing, sculpting, composing, conducting, backpacking, yoga, copulating, gambling, feminism, drinking, hanging around, frozen yogurt, and then it all evaporated and fell apart. People had to find things to do while waiting to die. I guess it was nice to have a choice.”
― Charles Bukowski,

>>3451406

Okay? So that entitles him to derail the whole conversation by causing a scene on stage?

>>3451401

>a six minute video
>details anything

Settle down, little mises.

>>3451401
This.

>>3451411
Not the guy you're replying to, but in my view, yes. She made an unprovoked personal attack that was unrelated to the discussion and got one in return. People who live in glass houses etc.

>>3450803
>implying Girls is Sex and the City 2

The resemblance is really, really slight. But yes, everyone should be watching Girls. I recommend starting by reading Troy Patterson's semi-famous bravura meta-review somewhat stupidly headlined "The New York Observers." (He also has a briefer, lesser introduction to the second season, "Money Never Sleeps." Slate really needs better copyeditors.)

>Girls (HBO, Sundays at 10:30 p.m. ET) is an exceptional piece of American art, as witty as The Women, richer in raunch than Portnoy’s Complaint, charismatic like Sleater-Kinney. A lot of people are writing about it, some of them even literately, and that is generally a cheerful development.

And it goes on to be one of the best pieces of cultural criticism in a while. Yes, I do plug it every chance I get.

>>3451345
"The patriarchy" isn't the Elders of Dongs or something. It's an abstraction of attitudes, mores, aesthetic tropes, laws, etc. that enact male supremacy over women.

>and go into other various male spaces where women were forbidden before.

And when women got into those spaces, they found men could really be condescending fucktards. Most current women's lib efforts are aimed at rectifying that.

>>3451401
Have you ever met someone who's chained themselves to a tree? You couldn't be more off-base.

>>3451408
Joan Didion did this better in Comrade Laski, C.P.U.S.A. (M.-L.).

>>3450821
This is a really good list. I'd add Gloria Steinem's "Outrageous Acts and Everyday Rebellions" and the collection "Yes Means Yes." Those two were the books that convinced me that Feminists were worth listening to, along with some personal experiences and reading (yes) Feminist blogs, mostly Feministing. Before that I was a dopey "talking about this stuff exacerbates inequality, if we pretend shit doesn't exist then it won't" manarchist.

post-structuralism

>>3451504
More so she had earlier called him a racist as well.

>>3451521


As far as blogs to read today, I assume Feministing is still good, but I haven't consistently read it in a few years and there's been a lot of writer turnover.

>>3451504

Without watching the whole thing (something I'm not going to do) I'd wager the attack was actually related to the discussion. They were discussing "British identity" and the guy was obviously a rather self-entitled Tory. I'd be surprised if a charge of racism wasn't germane to the discussion.

Also, he was clearly doing that "I'm a drunk smart man, listen to me little miss" thing. Even if she provoked him, he's an ass.

>>3451527
Why are you defending her? She is clearly not in any way a suitable feminist proponent.

If there is anything I hate with feminists it's the fact they are not in anyway capable of self-criticism.

You'd could literally have a girl promoting the genocide of all white men, tax evasion, sexual assualt, even rape and they would still get defended by the tumblr defense force.

It's always hurr durr men behave the same way. It's still wrong you god damn idiot.

>Also, he was clearly doing that "I'm a drunk smart man, listen to me little miss" thing. Even if she provoked him, he's an ass.
How is that any excuse?

> They were discussing "British identity" and the guy was obviously a rather self-entitled Tory.
self-entitled tory?

>He was born the only child of Quaker parents, and attended Kendal Grammar School before entering Cambridge through a scholarship. There he specialised in Tudor history, writing a thesis on King Henry VIII's household. From Cambridge he moved to the London School of Economics, where he taught history until 1998.

I'd rather have his opinion on british identity than a fucking 25-year old whom was schooled in US.

>>3451537
Politics:
>Starkey was raised in an austere and frugal environment of near-poverty, with his parents often unemployed for long periods of time; an environment which, he later stated, taught him "the value of money".[25] "I suppose my politics remained essentially in the middle-of the-road Labour left until the end of the 1970s".[25] Starkey blames the Callaghan administration for "blow[ing] the nation's finances".[25] He bemoaned the Tories when they were in opposition, criticising Michael Howard in particular: "I knew Michael Howard was going to be a disaster as soon as he opposed top-up fees, either out of sentimentality or calculated expediency so that it might get him a bit of the student vote...Instead of backing Tony Blair, causing revolution in the Labour Party, the Conservatives have been whoring after strange gods, coming up with increasingly strange policies."[26] He likened Gordon Brown to the fictional Kenneth Widmerpool, continuing, "It seems to me that with Brown there is a complete sense of humour and charm bypass."[7] During the 2011 Conservative Party Conference, he spoke at a fringe meeting, declaring London Mayor Boris Johnson as a "jester-despot", and Prime Minister David Cameron as having "absolutely no strategy" for running the country. He urged the party to re-engage with the working class rather than the "Guardian-reading middle class".[27]

>>3451527
>I'd be surprised if a charge of racism wasn't germane to the discussion.

The racism accusation isn't what set off his response though - she interrupted him to ask about a house he owns in the states and his taxes. I have a very hard time seeing how that was related to anything.

I agree that he seems like an ass, but honestly so does she. You can't make insinuations like that and then later claim that you're being treated unfairly when somebody calls you out for being a hypocrite on stage. I have no particular sympathy for either of them, but I can't blame him for it.

>>3451527
How about you do some reading instead of spouting accusations without any fucking clue.

>>3451541
He is also openly gay and support the LBGT movement

He was appointed CBE in 2007, is an honorary associate of the National Secular Society and an ardent supporter of equality between heterosexuals and homosexuals. He is openly gay and lives with his long-time partner in the south of England.

But wait... even tho he had poor upbringing, bashes both political sides, excelled through education, openly gay we mustn't forget that he is a white male and that is all that is needed to trash someone.

>>3451546
In short fuck you.

>>3451546
>>3451538

Well, now I'm sorry I conceded he seemed like a bit of an ass based on a 5 minute video. Those are some pretty badass credentials.

>>3451555
Well, he was an asshole but rightly so.

>>3451537
Partially because it seems to me she was unfairly put on and partially because someone needs to on 4chan. A young woman identifying as a feminist is going to get dismissed and mocked here no matter what she says, and she's going to get dismissed and mocked as a woman. (Check the comments section on the video.) Even if we decide take the situation as ambiguous, someone should be advocating for her perspective here.


>If there is anything I hate with feminists it's the fact they are not in anyway capable of self-criticism.

And no, this isn't that, and have you seen how nasty internecine Feminist debates can get?

And for the record, I actually don't identify as a feminist for a number of reasons too long to get into here.

>How is that any excuse?

You don't respond to a provocation by hammily asserting your superiority.

>I'd rather have his opinion on british identity than a fucking 25-year old whom was schooled in US.

Well, note they were both on the panel.

>>3451538
So he's a Tory, albeit not a party flack.

>>3451539
Obviously they had a running thing at this point, and even if we isolate it, it's conceivable someone choosing to expatriate themselves for tax reasons could play in a discussion on British identity.

As far as hypocrisy:

1) I suspect the story wasn't substantially true as he's presenting it.
2) Even if it is, so what? Say she wasn't really keen to do it (which she pretty much says) but enough money would've made her go along with it. That's fine. The whole attack is predicated on the assumption that debating him for this Thomas Paine club is a moral British duty, which is very silly.
3) She's a 26 year old freelance writer. He is old and, despite his background, wealthy. "Doing an event for free" means substantially different things for them.

I've got to run, but if (ha!) this thread is still here later today I'll continue.

>>3451546
>bashes both political sides

I'm sorry, but I can't let this go. This is not a credential whatsoever. It's the easiest thing to do to say "both sides" in partisan politics are flawed. Virtually every semi-literate American manages it.

Also, someone's status as a minority obviously doesn't prevent them from having some other privileges or negative attitudes towards other minorities. That's basic.

>>3451572
>Also, someone's status as a minority obviously doesn't prevent them from having some other privileges or negative attitudes towards other minorities. That's basic.

No, but it undermines the notion that he is this great evil The Man-figure who's out to impose his privilege on everyone within reach of his mighty phallus.

You're right of course - but tumblr would disagree. They seem to worship minority individuals. The less common the better.

>>3451566
It’s a tough life being the New Statesman’s “voice of a generation”, but luckily Laurie Penny – our favourite privately educated revolutionary who learnt about the hard knocks of life at Wadham College, Oxford – has found the solution to all her problems. Hire some help. She is advertising for an intern to help her with a book, which due to media demands she doesn’t have time to commit to herself. If only she spent more time typing instead of rioting…

The job is to “find statistics and quotes and case studies, talk over what I’m writing and hunt down sources and stories for me, and keep meticulous notes of all sources in academic format.” For this the lowly researcher will be paid the grand sum of £500 for 85 hours work. As a fearless left-wing campaigner for higher living standards for the workers surely Laurie must know that £5.88 per hour is short of the minimum wage and far from the “living wage” she publicly supports (£7.85). Apparently the job would “suit someone who is currently out of work, working part-time, or parenting”. What planet is she on that she thinks parents can afford childcare on £5.88 per hour?

Even more controversial than the flouting of minimum wage legislation is her contempt for sexual equality legislation. She clearly states: “I’m probably looking for a female researcher”. The EHRC clearly says: “Stating a preference for a man or woman in a job advertisement is unlawful sex discrimination unless the requirements of the particular job mean that it is lawful to employ only a man or a woman”. Form an orderly queue…

UPDATE : Should point out for the sake of completeness that Penny’s practical understanding of unpaid internships was cushioned by the fact that she was lucky enough to have an inheritance to rely on when she was starting out in the media.

Indeed. This is the same Laurie Penny of course who comes from a rich Boho family which moved from London to Brighton (no doubt to get away from all the blacks in the awful sink comprehensives in the capital), where little Penny wise went to Brighton College, private school du jour for the leftwing hypocrites of Sussex.

>>3451582
>>3451579
You all care way too much about this stupid woman.

>>3451579
>Laurie Penny
Phwoar, I'd deconstruct her gender binary if you know what I mean. Same goes for most of the New Statesmen female journos. But then I read their articles, and half the time the illusion is broken...

But yeah, her and Kate Mossman all the way.

>>3450969
Caitilin Moran is funny now? You're a mong.

Oh, feminists. Sweet sweet feminists. I wouldn't want to live in a world without them.

There is nothing more attractive to me than the passionate conviction of an angry woman. I can't abide those boring housebound cutetsy airheads. No, she has to be fuelled by a cause, fighting for something, my fierce lady warrior.

I'm a dominant guy by nature, I'm controlling and ego-driven. Yet nothing comes close to playing submissive to an empowered female, letting her ride me into the mattress, groaning through gritted teeth as that small droplet of hate never leaves her. If you want your own dominant female, it's a cat and mouse game. Be sympathetic to their cause, but don't be a pushover, they like a bit of resistance. They like to fight for their dominance.

College parties are a great place to find you beautiful warrior queen. Start a conversation with her, subtly engage her on feminism, let her correct you, let her think she's winning. You can't be a misogynist. No no, that will get you nowhere. You must seem sympathetic, but understate the importance of feminism. This will sent her wild; she knows you support her cause, but you still need educating. Never fully submit, that slight privilege is crucial to keep, with a little luck your new equality maiden will ride it out of you.

You can't keep your feminist for too long, though, things will always stagnate. Fortunately, there are millions of them looking for a weak privileged male like you can be.

There is no patriarchy preventing a women from getting a Mathematics degree. There is nothing more to write about; its time for women to prove themselves.

>>3451606
>There is no patriarchy preventing a women from getting a Mathematics degree.
That, historically, has not been that much of an issue. Many women became educated during the enlightenment and since.

>Judith Butler
>Susan Sontag
>Monique Wittig
>Gloria Steinem
Just a couple more and we have a minyan!

Postmodern feminism is gender Marxism with the same eschaton as every other kind of Marxism. There is no reason to be interested in "feminism" or "feminist literature" unless you perceive a better understanding of feminism to further your goals. Instead, try using the scientific method independently by examining statistics and facts related to the gender question.

>have a decent thread here last night
>/pol/ invasion over a youtube video thread presumably now gets deleted
>this thread gets shitted up

>>3451603
Thank you dear anon, you have not only given me a boner but you have also broadened my horizons.

>>3451626

All of 4chan is /pol/. Where have you been?

>>3451546
None of that stops him from being a racist sexist dick however

>>3451632
Okay, so what makes him a racist, sexist, and/or "dick"?

>>3451641
It's no secret that Starkey is racist and sexist, and from that one can extrapolate a certain dickishness.

>>3451644
It's no secret to anyone here that you're a massive retard after that post. From that we can extrapolate that it's time for you to stop posting.

>>3451621
I think most people will dismiss what you have to say, or not even read it, because of the hostile and implication-laden manner in which you introduce it.

I think you're completely right, but I doubt you are doing much other than preaching to the choir and galvanizing the opposition.

>>3451646
>It's no secret to anyone here that you're a massive retard after that post.
Oh, I'm sorry I don't want to take part in this weird hagiographical circle jerk thing you want to start.

>>3451646
If you stopped with this unrelated, agenda pushing shit /lit/ would improve.
Don't criticise when you're shitting all over the place

>>3451631
The /pol/ mindset certainly is growing and spilling onto other boards. A quick look at the state of things today explains why. It's only a matter of time before it enters the mainstream, and it won't be pretty.

It's happening.

>>3451667
This is your future.

>>3451651
I didn't even know who the man was before watching the video. I asked a simple question and you answered with the fallacious "everyone knows", "it's common sense", "it's no secret" style of reasoning which I feel is centric to feminist posts on 4chan.

>>3451662
I merely rephrased his post. I wouldn't call two short posts "shitting all over the place".

>>3451662
+1

Also, I thought we were talking about feminism and feminist authors, not whether some guy was a dick or not.

>>3451646
omg internet is for edgy racists don't u know hi5

>>3451668
God bless that man.

>>3451668

>>3451670
>I didn't even know who the man was before watching the video.
Fucking hell, if you're too ignorant to even keep up with the news, you shouldn't be talking about it. David Starkey isn't a niche personality by any stretch, and his sexist and racist views are public knowledge.

>>3451680

>>3451685

>>3451670
Here's some of Starkey's top soundbites:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-145137
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culturevandradio/5077505/History-has-beefeminised-says-David-Starkey-as-hlaunches-Henry-VIII-series.html

As a practising historian his claims about what female historians write are in complete opposition to all of my personal experience from studying the field

>>3451684
Why are you repeating yourself? I don't care about vague statements like "it's public knowledge" or "it's no secret". As I've already said. Why do I have to repeat myself as well? Either provide me with evidence that proves the man is a racist, sexist, dick or retract the claim. If it's so obvious and universally known, you shouldn't have trouble finding me proof.

>>3451700
>yourself
It's so obvious that you're arguing with multiple posters and conflating them into being one

>>3451700
You could literally google 'David Starkey Racist' and get the results

>>3451700
Not the person you're asking, but some of the comments he made after the riots a couple years ago are a good example of his racism. And his attempt to re-articulate those comments too.

This stuff is even included on his wiki page, I believe.

>>3451700
>I don't care about vague statements like "it's public knowledge"
It's not a vague statement, it means if you are so inclined the information is easily and freely available for you to look up yourself. If you can't be bothered to do this, by all means don't, but don't whine about it and have a hissy fit.

>>3451365

This video should be banned from /lit/

>>3451697
As a practising historian his claims are perfectly valid though I do not believe it's exclusively as a result of female writers. How do topics such as "Sexuality in early Stuart Britain 1603-1660" or "The role of women in popular revolts in the Spanish Netherlands" contribute to our understanding of history? How does interpreting history through gendered glasses help historians? I have been force-fed plenty of articles that forced a gendered interpretation of historical periods or events without there being any reason for it, by both male and female authors.

>>3451365
Ah, If only Hitchens were still alive for a political debate with Miss Penny.

>>3451703
If you're correct, that second poster should have read the earlier posts in the discussion. Repeating something that was already replied to does not contribute to the discussion.

>>3451705
>>3451714
>>3451715
>‘It is about black culture, that is the enormously important thing, it is not skin colour, it is culture.’
Would you look at that racism. How many years has it been since individuals like Franz Boas, Margaret Mead, Stephen Jay Gould and Richard Lewontin have been shown to have tampered with evidence and obfuscated their statistical analyses? It's mind-blowing that statements like these do not get responded to with anything but accusations of racism. Funny enough, cultural relativism does not prevent white, male or heterosexual culture from being criticized heavily. An actual racist would not have said "it is not skin colour". Just have a listen to men like Jared Taylor or Kevin MacDonald. Ergo, the man cannot be shown to be a racist. Criticizing culture is perfectly valid.

>>3451754
>Criticizing culture is perfectly valid.
Actually, I'll retract that statement because culture is generally intangible and partially an expression of genetic similarity in populations

>>3451754
>How many years has it been since individuals like Franz Boas, Margaret Mead, Stephen Jay Gould and Richard Lewontin have been shown to have tampered with evidence and obfuscated their statistical analyses?
Every claim of Stephen Jay Gould fucking up on statistics that I've seen hasn't held up to scrutiny. Most of the time they're misquoting older versions of his research and using that as a basis to misunderstand his work.

>>3451774
Sure. What about The Mismeasure of Science? What about all those critics throughout the years that have criticized him for not only his theories, but also for his populist rhetoric and blatantly obvious political motives?

>>3451789
>Sure. What about The Mismeasure of Science?
If you bother to read the "critics" they're more often than not referencing work much earlier than that.
>What about all those critics
Again, I've yet to see one hold up to scrutiny.

>>3451796
The Mismeasure of Science is the name of a 2011 article.
Lewis et al., 2011. The Mismeasure of Science: Stephen Jay Gould versus Samuel George Morton on Skulls and Bias.

Also, for example:
It does not seem to me entirely implausible to suggest that Gould’s passion against human sociobiology was linked to the fear that it was yet another tool which could be used for antisemitic purposes. I did ask Gould about this once… He did not entirely repudiate the idea, but inclined to think that the opposition stemmed more from Marxism, and as it so contingently happens, most American Marxists are from Eastern European Jewish families. Perhaps both factors were involved.
Ruse, M. (1989). Is the theory of punctuated equilibria a new paradigm? Journal of Social and Biological Structures 12:195-212.

Gould offers no alternative ideas to account for all of these well-established observations. His mission in this area appears entirely nihilistic.”
Jensen, A. R. (1982). The debunking of scientific fossils and straw persons. Contemporary Education Review 1:121-135.

Also it's kind of ironic that you're saying Gould is being misquoted when misquoting is pretty much Gould's favourite pastime when it comes to 19th century and early 20th century race scientists

>>3451819
Hang on, that's already been picked apart in the archives.

>>3451819
>>3451796
http://fuuka.warosu.org/lit/thread3204075#p3205073
http://fuuka.warosu.org/lit/thread3204075#p3205075

>>3451754
>a single fragment is all he said
Okay then

>>3451735

Gendered interpretations? Historical writing has always been gendered in that it excludes the role of women in society and in historical events and interprets history from a strictly white, male perspective. In the same way, historical writing has underrepresented various ethnic groups, indigenous peoples, blacks, queers, etc. Stop pretending that historical interpretation, as you put it, is only gendered when it's feminist...

And if you really believe that an "actual racist" would not have said "it is not skin colour" then you you're more naive that you've already proved yourself to be. To imply that "whites have become black" because they're reacting violently to a situation or for any reason at all is definitely racist. His attempts at re-articulating his position by claiming it's "not about race", that he's speaking specifically about a "specific kind of black culture" only confirm that his comments were racist. In Starkey's mind, there is a specific kind of black culture that is responsible for the specific kind of white culture that participated in the riots. How is that not racist? White people only act out when they're acting like a specific kind of black culture?

>>3451735
>How do topics such as "Sexuality in early Stuart Britain 1603-1660" or "The role of women in popular revolts in the Spanish Netherlands"

Uh, by deepening our understanding of sexuality in Stuart Britain and the role of women in popular revolts in the Spanish Netherlands?

>>3451923
You put it so well anon, you must be a history genius or something.

"All performed femininity — like all performed masculinity — is a drag race. Cinderella was a drag queen. Margaret Thatcher was a drag queen. Beyoncé and Nicki Minaj and most especially Lady Gaga are drag queens, and doing drag well and self-consciously is always an exercise in queering, no matter what you’ve got between your legs. That kind of drag is what the beauty-industrial complex of advertising, magazines, makeover shows, and music videos are terrified by, and yes, it is queer, and yes, it is feminist.”
— Laurie Penny"

>>3451845
I don't know how you come to the conclusion that it's "been picked apart". For one, the 1981 version and the 1996 version both feature the claim the article is refuting. Which is the claim that Morton unconsciously mismeasured skulls to fit his racial bias. The data given by Gould does not differ between versions of the book or the 1978 paper.

For example, straight from the 1981 version:
>‘‘Plausible scenarios are easy to construct. Morton, measuring by seed, picks up a threateningly large black skull, fills it lightly and gives it a few desultory shakes. Next, he takes a distressingly small
Caucasian skull, shakes hard, and pushes mightily at the foramen magnum with his thumb. It is easily done, without conscious motivation; expectation is a powerful guide to action’’
This scenario was entirely constructed within Gould's mind. Of course, he admits this, but why include it to begin with? Why not simply measure some skulls now and find out whether Morton was right or wrong? It has been done by Rushton, but Gould has not responded to it. Rushton himself had a lot to say about Gould as well.
http://psychology.uwo.ca/faculty/rhtonpdfs/Gould.pdf

From the article:
>Gould also performed his own analysis of Morton’s cranial capacity data and came to the conclusion that ‘‘there are no differences to speak of among Morton’s races’’ ([1], italics in original).
This clearly does not make sense.

>Gould had the good faith to take Morton's measurements as accurate, even describing Morton's pains to acheive consistent measurements, why is anyone thinking remeasuring the skulls gets anywhere?
The point is that Morton did not "mismeasure man". Isn't that the whole idea behind "The MISMEASURE of Man"?

>>3451952
This is quite nice.

Devolving into race realism now?

/pol/ please go.

>>3451968
God forbid people actually apply the scientific method instead of going by unsubstantiated sociology.

>>3451972

I asked you nicely to go.

>>3451954
>For one, the 1981 version and the 1996 version both feature the claim the article is refuting.
They don't. Not even the 1978 article, the one cited, contains what is claimed. As stated there, central to Gould's claim is not a lack of diligence on the part of Morton in measurement, it's this "finagling" in the analysis. That's simply pointed out later as another area where one might find bias creep in, in the book not the article.

>This clearly does not make sense.
It's because Lewis et al. are fucking up on what they're talking about. Gould looks at, in an incredibly straightforward way, how Morton analysed the data from his groups. He says we can't criticise Morton for not taking into account outliers in the way we do today, the issue is that Morton is inconsistent with how he looks at averages, i.e. either take the average of each skull in each group, and then take an average with equal weighting across groups (the analogy to basketball players and jockeys comes into play here) or take an average equally weighted by individual, but don't do one for one group, and something else for another, as Morton did. And then when you look at how he did something like outliers, under more scrutiny it's clear that what he's done inflates one over the other too.

>The point is that Morton did not "mismeasure man".
The book (which again failed to be referred to) is looking at how we can unintentionally take a measure (such as a mean or a volume) as part of confirmation bias. Morton is only one person/research looked at.

Feminism is a slave morality.

It's a negative reaction to masculinity which is good, strong and healthy.

It's a way for women to make excuses about their short-comings in every field, from art, science, music and even cooking. It's a way for them to make excuses for their lack of leadership and social awareness throughout history.

They let themselves be dominated for some strange reason, now they are in a teenage phase of rebellion, soon they will grow up, maybe

>>3451983
>They don't. Not even the 1978 article, the one cited, contains what is claimed.
...
>For example, straight from the 1981 version:
>>‘‘Plausible scenarios are easy to construct. Morton, measuring by seed, picks up a threateningly large black skull, fills it lightly and gives it a few desultory shakes. Next, he takes a distressingly small Caucasian skull, shakes hard, and pushes mightily at the foramen magnum with his thumb. It is easily done, without conscious motivation; expectation is a powerful guide to action’’

>Gould looks at, in an incredibly straightforward way
Nothing quite as straightforward as creating imaginary scenarios when the actual evidence could be examined. The actual evidence which proves that Morton did not apply any subconscious biases when examining his evidence.

>>3451994
>Nothing quite as straightforward as creating imaginary scenarios when the actual evidence could be examined.
He examines "actual evidence". Again, he looked at how Morton took his average volumes after measuring, and found the method to not be rigorous at all.