/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.13588466]

Are there critiques of "feminist approaches" to literature?
Shouldn't truth and objectivity have primacy over personal preferences?

[Anonymous No.13588478]

>objectivity
>in subjective art
lmao
>personal references
Look up death of the author. Sounds like the problem here is you disagree with these preferences for political reasons, and you're doing a bad job of veiling it.

[Anonymous No.13588522]

>truth
Truth of what?

[Anonymous No.13588574]

>>13588466
What a cum brain

[Anonymous No.13588593]

>oh no, someone wrote a shitty essay I don't like
>i better go and tell the boys at the /lit/ board so we can have a circlejerk about how bad feminism is

Who cares, my dude.

[Anonymous No.13588599]

Why do we publicly fund activism

[Anonymous No.13588601]

>>13588599
What are universities for?

[Anonymous No.13588633]

Coming from a women's perspective, I fail to see how pigeonholing all men as misogynistic, victim-blaming assholes is at all conducive to the creation of an egalitarian society. Don't @ me

[Anonymous No.13588975]

>>13588466
Look man, there's no objectivity in fiction, the closest thing we had was common sense, but that's basically rekt since industrial revolution.
So, we're basically fucked, because she's in her right to say what she like, but doesn't mean is less retarded. We just can't point it out to her why.

[Anonymous No.13588983]

>>13588975
Why is it that her subjective opinions are the ones that are funded, encouraged, promoted, and considered "right" by The State and Academia, while other subjective opinions are grounds for being fired/expelled?

[Anonymous No.13588991]

>>13588983
the hell if i know, i said we're fucked didn't i ?

[Anonymous No.13588995]

>>13588983
I'm not sure the US government mandates which approaches to literature are allowed. Is there a law somewhere that prohibits non-queer readings of Moby Dick?

[Anonymous No.13589007]

>>13588995
Try going against the neoliberal status quo on campus, and see where that gets you.

[Anonymous No.13589039]

Look in your heart and speak what you feel is true, and you will find the answer.

For me it's an unhealthy obsession with gender, especially sexual organs, a refusal to see any value of older works because the author isn't contemporary in his ethics, a selfish overvaluing of your own ideas since by doing a "queer anaylsis" you're implicitly saying that you can reduce such a complex work of art to your own, rather banal, philosophy. It's simply too one-dimensional to grasp the whole. You do all this while at the same time proclaiming superiority, which is very ironic. This applies the same to any theoretical "communist analysis" or "vegan analysis" or "atheist analysis" or "Christian analysis". Starting off with a bias is starting off with blinders on, and the people intentionally do it.

[Anonymous No.13589176]

>>13588466
>Shouldn't truth and objectivity have primacy over personal preferences?

[Anonymous No.13589193]

>>13589007
>neoliberal
I bet you haven't been on a campus ever. Stop looking at youtube-videos and taking them as valid facts.

[Anonymous No.13589207]

>>13589007
neoliberalism is one of the most critizised concepts in the humanities.

[Anonymous No.13589289]

>mfw, somewhere in America, right now, people I don't know are reading books and interpreting and enjoying them in ways I don't personally approve of

[Anonymous No.13589291]

>>13588466
>Are there critiques of "feminist approaches" to literature?
The biggest problem in feminism is considered to be "what is a woman?".

But speaking more generally, Critical Theory is more or less a form of academic mysticism. The way to obtain the truth is by initiation into or submission to a particular group (women, queer, etc) which has access to truth via inner experiences which cannot be shared outside of the initiated group. This makes it completely useless for discussing a common reality - in literature or otherwise. The result is that Critical Theory encourages endless discourse and conflict. This fuels the "publish or perish" imperative in academia and it recruits impressionable students into identities (through a process of awakening and self-recognition as a woman, or queer, or whatever) and methods of interpreting culture (and reality). Ultimately membership of the group and interpreting reality through the lens of the group lead people toward rent-seeking behaviour. They work - not to improve the lot of everyone in society - but to lobby for more resources and power for the group. Because of this, they are primed for bribery by government and corporate interests who want their votes and money. They are also very sensitive to observing threats to their group. Because of all this, they become very susceptible to messaging and manipulation through media. They willingly become dependent, because their mindset is one of a victim who needs rescue from malevolent dangers, so they inevitably become the stooges and trojan horses of authorities and institutions that want to use their vulnerability as an excuse to exert ever more exacting control over social and political life.

[Anonymous No.13589371]

>>13589289
Imagine unironically thinking this is a good argument

[Anonymous No.13589428]

>>13589371
>he can't tell the difference between arguing and mocking

[Anonymous No.13589481]

>>13589428
There is an underlying idea, and that was what I was critiquing.

[Anonymous No.13589645]

>>13589481
>he thinks typing "imagine" is criticism

[Anonymous No.13589665]

>>13589645
>he thinks it's not

[Anonymous No.13589874]

>>13589291
Good post, however the vanguardist identity groups work symbiotically with the authorities and institutions aka the "neoliberal elite". The continued oppression of these identity groups is the cause and justification for the expansion of bureaucratic power, and this explains why, as OP seems to be getting at, there are no countervailing schools of "identity hermeneutics". The core defense of these interpretive methods is that they are subjective, so it would seem to be peculiar that there are zero right-wing (to put it bluntly) forms of identity hermeneutics supported by the academic mainstream. If this is all subjectivity and personal preference, and the authors are all dead, why can't I get support for an Aryanist interpretation of Moby Dick or a Christian interpretation of Discipline and Punish?

The reason for this is that the neoliberal elite has no use for rightist intepretations because these would inevitably have the effect of undermining their social and political power. Cultural studies only exists to serve this purpose, after all, what type of people are doing cultural studies? Those who want to enter that yankee-universalist elite caste at the peak of American society, a New Money clique that is nominally "open to all". From a career perspective, why would a fledgling academic NOT want to show his support for the openness criterion of the elite group he wants membership in? So far I haven't seen anyone show that rightist cultural studies (if they existed) are "wrong", but there is little reason to support them because they will only ingratiate you with le MAGA chuds who are the foil of the actual American ruling class based out of New England and Virginian suburbs

[Anonymous No.13589948]

>>13589207
Yeah they like to criticize gender and money too

Yet somehow there are still men and women (and money)

[Anonymous No.13589966]

>>13588466
Women believe anything they hear.

They are instinctually programmed to assign truth to anything anyone says in their trusted social sphere with no thought or judgement at all.

Because they had to watch over others constantly since the beginning of humanity, they became selfless. Because they were so close to all the needs and wants of their people, they developed the instinct to trust them absolutely and a true understanding of their people was taken for granted.
Their bodies and minds became dedicated to nourishing their communities. They would listen to the men speaking of what they've done in the wide world and translate the substance to emotional terms that can be understood by other women, and so used to guide the behavior of the children.
When they were relieved of many responsibilities to their people by the 'modernization' of society the trait of selflessness became hollow and so turned to nothing but self-unawareness, leaving the instinct to implicitly trust their social sphere intact to be turned to purposes other than what made it to begin with.

With the addition of 'the media' to modern society, with all of its inherent falsehoods, women are turned completely against their own nature.
Their nurturing instincts are used to nurture the interests of the upper classes as handed down from the media rather than those of the people they see and interact with every day, even their own children.
Instead of being warm with compassion they are cold with judgement calculated from the information they are brainwashed with; willing to go to any length to make their friends and families conform to the dictates of the elite.

So it is that women are the primary tool of the elite to control us all, because men will do anything for their women.
So it is that love is turned against us and the very foundation of our existence is betrayed.

This is the great vulnerability in the mind of the human that is exploited to make empire by slavery.

The only solution is to overpower women completely; to overcome and/or capture the elite's front-line soldiers at any cost.
Life begins with women, without dealing with them you can't do anything at all and all planning is worthless.
This is not a matter of personal responsibility. This is an aberration of society and it requires an organized collective solution.
Men everywhere have to band together in confederated groups, decide on what the law should be, and enforce it autonomously.
By setting our minds on this goal and accomplishing it we will gain the strength to contend with the next battle - 'politics'.

You will never accomplish anything other than the total loss of your humanity by continuing to work under this system.