[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 104 KB, 803x688, enough.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
7269507 No.7269507[DELETED]  [Reply] [Original]

Hell mates, I was presented with a concept today in my Critical Discourse Analysis class. The instructor informed us that the very design of the English language is patriarchal, sexist, and dominating over women, etc. Apparently much of our vocabulary and word structures oppress women from expressing themselves, or having a political voice etc. I was just wondering if you have had any personal experience with this type of discussion or if it is indeed true in some circumstances. Just inquiring.

>> No.7269515

>>7269507
In the end, it all comes down to violence, and men are better at violence.

>> No.7269517

Yes.

>> No.7269523

Absolutely.

>> No.7269525

>>7269515
I concur with that in most circumstances.
>>7269517
May i have a little more insight into this? Im currently looking through some studies published into this and would like a little /lit/ input just to have some different perspective

>> No.7269527

>>7269515
McCarthy pls leave

>> No.7269535

>>7269525

Do you want me to cite all of western history?

>> No.7269540

>>7269507
>very design of the English language is patriarchal, sexist, and dominating over women
unequivocally false

>> No.7269545

>>7269540

demonstrate its falsehood

>> No.7269550

>>7269545
lol

loool

LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOL

we've hit that point folks.

gas this fucking board gg

>> No.7269552

>>7269535
No there is no need for that. I concur with the patriarchal design and influence of western history. I just havnt had access nor been presented with this aspect of human communication. I suppose im attempting to wrap my head around a language design that is inherently gender neutral or non-sex related.

>> No.7269555

Everything will be called sexist, racist etc. until the white man is being pushed into gas chambers. Unless YOU stand up.

>> No.7269560

>>7269550

despite your belief that you are merely refuting a positive claim you are in fact making an additional positive claim yourself

>> No.7269563

>>7269555
Trips dont lie

>> No.7269565

>>7269552
lol you're a fucking retard and you're having trouble wrapping your head around this because sounds that we use to denote meaning being intrinsically biased against one gender is the dumbest load of twaddle ive ever fucking read

>> No.7269568

>>7269555

Are you a slogan copying machine? Do you ever think using concepts that aren't borrowed

>> No.7269571

>>7269550
>being asking to back up your claims with a coherent argument is now not /lit/

Fuck off, newfaggot.
Why not use this as an occassion to discuss the topic OP is bringing up?

Does everything have to derail into /pol/ or /r9k/-tier 'discourse'?

>> No.7269575

>>7269560
fuck off back to tumblr. big words don't make your shit any less intellectually bankrupt, faggot

>> No.7269579

>>7269568
You seem really pissed off that someone is questioning your narrative about sexism and racism. How does it feel to be discovered?

>> No.7269584

>>7269565
>intrinsically

I don't think that it needs to be intrinsic to be biased.

>> No.7269586

>>7269565
Well i dont necessarily like the idea of being a fucking retard. But for what appears my whole teenage existence i have failed to consider nor have i encountered this information until just recently. Not that it's a hard concept to understand, it's just that i havnt ever experienced it. If it is full of shit then that's wonderful, i just wanted a little input into how language could intrinsically be sexist. Just want better my perspectives here mate.

>> No.7269588

>>7269584
>The instructor informed us that the very design of the English language is patriarchal, sexist, and dominating over women, etc.
>the VERY DESIGN

what are you even blithering about you faggot

>> No.7269589

What the flying fuck?
There are a lot of English words that are completely sexless unless you do something like she-[Thing]. like she-cat or he-dog.
I can't help but wonder what would they do if they ever heard Spanish, since most words have a simple modifier to distinguish between male or female, like gata and gato.

>> No.7269590

>>7269579

I'm not sure why you read anger rather than dejection in my tone

>>7269575

get fucked meathead

those are tiny words, you should be able to visualize them

>> No.7269592

>>7269586
But it appears*

>> No.7269593

oi who's got the dfw version of the op

>> No.7269594

>>7269571
>english is sexist to its core, to its very structure
>what do you mean it isn't? POST PROOF

yeah ok nigger

>> No.7269597

>>7269586
Are you the OP? The picture you used in the opening post seems to suggest that you've already made your mind up on the matter and are just posting this thread to get a /pol/-bait thread going on /lit/.
We have enough of them already

>> No.7269599

>>7269575

If you thought that post had 'big' words you might be an actual retard and are now making a spectacle of your stupidity.

>> No.7269600

>>7269589

the absence of said modifier is an interesting g point toward discussing OP's question

>> No.7269602

>>7269588
im saying that the instructor informed us that since the beginning of the english language, it has inherently been sexist and male dominating over women. The ways in which the language is constructed: It's words, transitions, flow, etc are all apparently sexist. At least thats what i read from her slides. Im not saying it's right or anything, i just want to know where this comes from or what backs it up

>> No.7269603

>>7269550
disgusting tbh

>> No.7269606

>>7269600
What I meant is that you can't be sexist when you are sexless. It's an unsustainable argument on every level, even verbal.

>> No.7269607

>>7269594

effectively all of history supports the first claim

the latter in effect becomes a positive claim

>> No.7269608

>>7269602
Post the slides.

>> No.7269609

>>7269597
No, at first i thought it was a genuinely silly concept. But the more i've searched the more articles/studies i've found regarding these claims.

>> No.7269612

>>7269606

just because there is no explicit modifier with an o-a binary doesn't mean the language isn't sexuated in pretty much any way imaginable

>> No.7269616

>>7269608
The saddest thing is that in this class we are not allowed to have access to her slides. We are only allowed to take basic notes and then find scholarly articles regarding the topic. I will however go through my canvas folder and see i can find any information she may have posted about this topic

>> No.7269617

>>7269607
>english language is sexist
>all of history supports this

top fucking kek bro

and even if you meant language, correlation =/= causation you soft-as-shit retard

>> No.7269620

>>7269612
I repeat: how can you be sexist when a lot of words don't have any difference between sexes.

>> No.7269631

>>7269620

a word can be gendered without changing its nominal form in almost limitless ways

>> No.7269635

>>7269631
post proof the english language oppresses women

>> No.7269640

>>7269590
I think you are angry, you're angry because no one is accepting your retarded ideology. You people are the least tolerant people on earth.

>> No.7269641

>>7269616
>The saddest thing is that in this class we are not allowed to have access to her slides.

Sure thing, buddy.
Sage and report.

>> No.7269644

>>7269631
I yet again repeat: How can you be sexist when you don't make any diference between sexes?

>> No.7269651

>>7269635

your concept of evidentiary proof and demonstrative methodology, in concert with the tone of your request is 'proof' enough of the attitudes that inform such things

>> No.7269652

English is almost entirely gender-neutral.

>> No.7269658

>>7269651
kek'd

>> No.7269659

>>7269593
does anyone know what i'm talking about; it was pretty ebin tho tbh

>> No.7269664

>>7269644

no difference in nominal form of word =/= no difference in gendered interpretation of meaning

>> No.7269665

>>7269651
a master of his craft

>> No.7269670

>>7269664
>english language is intrinsically sexist
>except it isn't, our gendered interpretations are

o i am laffing

>> No.7269671

>>7269665

sorry I'm not into Bertrand Russel's version of truth

>> No.7269678

>>7269664
Do you mean that when I just say "Cat" some people will asume that the cat is male?
Pretty bad point honestly. That doesn't have any relation with the language itself.

>> No.7269686

>>7269641
Hey i found a pdf for an analysis of this topic, its what was in the file for this section.
Burning Acts: Injurious Speech
By: Judith Butler
http://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1382&context=roundtable

>> No.7269687

>>7269670

I think the word intrinsic is problematic, given that language is a social function

>> No.7269695

>>7269678

I mean the word 'cat' is already gendered in the context in which it is given free reign as a signifier, aka the speech act

>> No.7269696

>>7269687
>problematic

stopped reading there tbh

>> No.7269702
File: 52 KB, 848x480, 1424477416715.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
7269702

>>7269686
>Burning Acts: Injurious Speech
>Dat moral bait title
>>7269695
What?
Did you just throw random "Deep" words in a way that kinda sorta made sense or something?

>> No.7269703

>>7269695
No it isn't you fucking autist. What are you even blabbing about God I fucking hate semiotics

>> No.7269706

Gender and race are mere red-herrings for what truly divides and commands the world: power and money.

>> No.7269707

>>7269703
>>7269702

so I gather you guys have no idea what you're talking about and you don't read

later

>> No.7269710 [SPOILER] 
File: 276 KB, 803x688, 1445552678744.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
7269710

>>7269593
>>7269659
found it in the archive fags

>> No.7269715

>>7269707
whatever helps you sleep at night chief

>> No.7269768

>>7269707
>unless you follow my totalitarian ideology you're not a true reader

>> No.7269797

>>7269507
>the very design
That makes no sense. Maybe Esperanto is 'designed', but English isn't.

But yeah, sure, plenty of English words/phrases carry implicit gender bias, eg calling young adult females 'girls' and young adult males 'men', or the verb 'to bitch', or 'you've got balls' meaning 'you're brave'. How are you even asking whether it's 'true in some circumstances'? Have you not noticed any examples yourself?

>> No.7269812

>>7269565
They wouldn't be intrinsically biased. Language isn't intrinsic. But sounds used to denote meaning can be biased against a gender. You chauvinist pig.

>> No.7269823

OP you're wrong and a retard

>> No.7269829

>>7269552
>I suppose im attempting to wrap my head around a language design that is inherently gender neutral or non-sex related
Huh? Does anyone raise this as a possibility? Language has all kinds of biases in it, including gender ones (that define roles for men as well as women, btw- it's not a one-way street). You can try to address specific issues eg by 'reclaiming' negative words, but to construct an entirely neutral language is impossible because that's not how people work.

>> No.7269840

>>7269823
But i never claimed a stance?

>> No.7269843

>>7269840
Sorry

>> No.7269852

>>7269797
Well i suppose what i mean by design is the mechanics and development of the English language over the course of centuries. Because english 200 years ago is vastly different in context when compared to current times.

>> No.7269862

>>7269843
It's all fine by me. I just wanted to get some perspectives.

>> No.7269871

>>7269710
Wow, its shit

>> No.7269872

>>7269862
Well I guess my perspective is that the English language isn't intrinsically sexist and I can't see how anyone could even perceive it that way. Especially since it doesn't even have grammatical gender

>> No.7269883

>>7269607
>effectively all of history supports the first claim

PROVE IT

Also, ask your fucking lecturer to prove it next time instead of asking us. Did we make your syllabus?

Go to lectures.

>> No.7269897

>>7269507

>Frankfurt School's critical theory

Not even once.

>> No.7269902

>>7269897
You clearly haven't read the Frankfurt School.

>> No.7269907

>>7269872
This is true, and basically what i've been considering since reading these different studies and articles. Although there are many phrases and word choices that signify male domination/sexism. I dont believe the entirety of the English language to be inherently sexist.

>> No.7269925

>>7269507
Wow, it's almost like "sexism" is inherent to human biology and occurs in everything we do

>> No.7269932

>>7269883
That wasnt OP, i do go to my classes regularly. This isnt about finding a true answer or me not asking my instructor enough questions, this is me bringing a perspective or topic to a place that is supposed to encourage thought and discussion. It pertains to human language, and since literature is a product of the human communication, i found this most appropriate. You act like you cant or are refusing to research it yourself.

>> No.7269933
File: 83 KB, 732x732, 1443840981784.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
7269933

>>7269507
Yeah, so what?

>> No.7270010

corporeal existence is racist!!! and probably a bigot as well

>> No.7270041

I'm not sure if I'm too stupid to understand this thread or this thread is too stupid to be understood.

>> No.7270043

>our language is inherently racist
No it isn't, language is the inference of vocalised sounds. No word is inherently anything but a sound.

>> No.7270049

>>7269706
The only one here who understands. No amount of manufactured freedom or equality can turn weakness into strength or virtue.

>> No.7270063

>>7270049
The people who want equality will always be the weaklings of society, so there's no use reasoning with them.

>> No.7270082
File: 26 KB, 176x187, 1354255386891.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
7270082

>>7269545
duh burden of proof

In all seriousness, you've stated a position yet give no example and no further demonstration of what you mean. Let me make a comparison.

I walk into a room. I say, "my professor told me that dinosaurs had a better understanding of molecular biology than we do now. Thoughts?"

If you want to have a discussion about this give us something we can work with, cite a source or reference an article.

2/10 you got me to respond

>> No.7270092

>>7270082

I'm not op

I'm not sure you completely understand burden of proof

I'm challenging the positive assertion of 'this is unequivocally false' , not affirming its opposite

>> No.7270101

>>7269640

what exactly in this case am I meant to be tolerant toward?

>> No.7270121
File: 29 KB, 317x421, rickderris.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
7270121

>>7269602
Jesus take a definitive stance
Are you saying that by being a male dominated society, language evolved to become male orientated?
Or, what you seem to be implying, is it that english as a language was deliberate constructed to be masculine?
The former is interesting, but to ostensibly claim that it is true you;d have to make comparisons between english and a language from a traditionally feminine society.
>inb4 french
The latter is a pile of crap and a crackpot conspiracy theory, and unless there is legitimate evidence of actual measures taken to make english more masculine, an opinion and a very invalid one.

Also where is the evidence of the patriarchy in language, you've made this claim yet there is no evidence posted. Very suspect

>> No.7270133

>>7270121

>to ostensibly claim that it is true you;d have to make comparisons between english and a language from a traditionally feminine society.

I don't see how that follows

>> No.7270145

>>7269852
I would actually like to know more about this. Not opposed to the statement this thread is about but I'd need more examples.
The only thing I can think of is that only few words have a female counterpart (steward/stewardess, actor/actress), whereas with the overwhelming majority default is male(doctor, lawyer, teacher) and it's just currently that these occupations can also have female connotations. But this still depends heavily on context.

>> No.7270156
File: 980 KB, 460x307, 1347831585239.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
7270156

>>7269631
>>7269612
>>7269651
>give us evidence or some form of derivation, or at least a comparison
>ur askin is evidence
>prove it
>ur asking is proof

Round and round we go, when we'll stop nobody knows

>> No.7270180

>>7269871
yeah tbqh fam it is shit, but it's p ebin.

>> No.7270198

Yes it is true. English like all languages is more useful the more intelligent you are. Women being less intelligent than men English empowers men relative to women.

>> No.7270207

>>7270133
If english is inherently patriarchal because it comes from society that is male dominated then there would be identifiable differences then a language evolved from a matriarchal society.

I really don't understand what the nature of OP's argument is. To me it seems like a loose assertion. I could understand it better if he made an example like english generally uses the active voice, while a language from a matriarchal society uses passive voice.

>> No.7270210

>>7270198
Haha this!!

Come to the Schopenhauer thread, we're BTFO of women in there
>>7269946

>> No.7270212

>>7270156

thanks for decidedly demonstrating the point

>> No.7270228

>>7270101
Those who disagree with you on matters of opinion such as this.

>> No.7270241

>>7270207

I think a large part of the argument against patriarchy in language stems, ostensibly (!) from the notion of its implicit hegemony, aka there aren't really a host of concrete examples one could draw from a 'matriarchy' as such given that patriarchy definitionally excludes such a thing from occurring in societies wherein it maintains power as a centralized narrative, examples of widespread matriarchy in human society are effectively nonexistent

>> No.7270243
File: 230 KB, 1988x794, obsolete.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
7270243

>>7269812
>Language isn't intrinsic

>> No.7270247

>>7270092
I understand that if someone makes an assertion I have a prerogative to assume that that assertion is false until some sort of merit is demonstrated.
Additionally the burden of proof is the obligation to demonstrate that your assertion is true, when someone provides an assertion with no evidence or justification (as OP has), it is untoward to ask someone to demonstrate the falsehood, when there has been no demonstration of truth-hood.

>> No.7270255

>>7270228

it's a rhetorical argument, and this is 4chan, who cares about how tolerant I'm seen as being when challenging an assertion?

>> No.7270272

>>7270247

>I have a prerogative to assume that that assertion is false

you're going too far and leaping into a further, reciprocal positive assertion about the truth-value of the statement, rather than simply doubting its veracity, when you do this

you're right to question the veracity of an assertion, but attesting to the veracity of its falsehood is another thing entirely

>> No.7270282

>>7270241
So, the argument is
>Language is patriarchal because it evolves from a patriarchal society

If that's what you're saying, I'd like to counter with correlation does not imply causation.
There needs to be significantly more evidence to advance such a claim.
Also what is the point of making such an assertion. I've seen no evidence or arguments that aren't cyclical or fallacious. The point needs to be demonstrated more effectively to be argued more productively.

>> No.7270289

>>7270282

more like

>language is patriarchal because society is patriarchal

I'd argue that the claim isn't about causation as such, the claim doesn't rest on its having a foundation in a causal chain, rather than a state of being the base on which language actively functions

>> No.7270292

To be "fucked over"
To really "give it to them"
To "beat their ass"
"Mother-fucker"
"Asshole"
To "fuck up" someone
To "pound" something
"Suck it"
"Shove it up your ads"
"Fucked over"
"Raped" as total victory

>> No.7270294

>>7270282
>correlation does not imply causation.
doesn't apply here fam

>> No.7270299

Blaming 'the patriarchy' for everything is like /pol/ blaming 'the Jews'.

>> No.7270307

>>7270292
These are gender neutral.

>> No.7270312

To be a "bitch"
To be a "cunt"
To have the "balls"
To "whore" oneself out
"Cry to your mommy"
"Fight like a girl"
Cry "like a bitch"

>> No.7270313
File: 6 KB, 250x250, image.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
7270313

>>7269651

keep fighting the good fight anon

>> No.7270315

>>7270307

hardly

>> No.7270318

>>7270307

They are sexually based. Patriarchal and sexist does not =/= only disparaging to women.

>> No.7270326

yes of course OP, we need newspeak to free us of the patriarchal and problematic nature of being able to express yourself intellectually in verbal communication

>> No.7270327

>>7270307

Don't be stupid, just because it's not gender normative doesn't mean that the use of the sexual act (presuppose to be with the male as initiator) isn't sexist. Stop limiting sexism and feminism to "muh girl power" and realise that toxic masculinity is part of feminism

>> No.7270331

>>7270272
Just to clarify
>very design of the English language is patriarchal, sexist, and dominating over women

>unequivocally false

Was not my post.

To qualify that, I never asserted that it was in fact false, I meant to draw attention to the fact that the burden of proof had not yet been fulfilled. Assuming an assertion is false until it can be qualified as true is not leaping too far.

Attesting to its falsehood when the assertion has not been granted validity by evidence is not entirely unreasonable when the lack of evidence is often indication of a troll

>> No.7270334

>>7270326

You are literally a fucking moron.

>> No.7270338

>>7270327
Enough with your toxic femininity, anon, this is a safe space. Stop raping me with your preconceived ideal.

>> No.7270339

>>7269651
>asking sheltered gender studies retards to back up their half baked degenerate cultural marxist word soup is proof of how correct their assertions are

"The fact that you criticise me and my retard ideas at all shows how right i am shitlord!!"

>> No.7270343

>>7270331

I disagree with your last sentence, whether or not someone's trolling doesn't limit the discourse to challenge

other than that I'm pretty sure we're making the same point from different angles

>> No.7270346

>>7270318
You can twist anything into being 'le sexist'.

>> No.7270348

>>7270331
women and chubby male feminists don't get to decide what masculinity is, and what being a man means.

>> No.7270349

>>7270343
Nice to find someone who can disagree without being disagreable

>> No.7270355

>>7270349
faggot

>> No.7270356

>>7270294
>doesn't apply here fam
Sorry friend that "doesn't apply"

>> No.7270359

>>7269602
Did she give any examples?
If anything i would think the romance languages would be more of a target for this sort of analysis, considering nearly every noun is denoted as masucline/feminine.

>i just want to know where this comes from or what backs it up
Then why didn't you ask the professor when she brought it up in the first place?

>> No.7270369

>>7270289
I think I understand now. This is claim that's not really provable right or wrong, but is made to encourage discussion on a topic. There's no evidence lending to the cause and any evidence against is easily dismissed, but the purpose is to foster discussion.

>> No.7270373

>>7270355
u too bb

>> No.7270377

>>7270338

You know, one day you're going to be too old to understand what's going on around you and that will leave you a useless old man unable to even participate in the conversation, much less offer suggestions or opinions. The people you will eventually care about will be open minded enough to at least entertain new ideas even if just for a chance to engage in a dialectic about the changing social standards and they will learn from it. Regardless of whether they agree with them or not they will grow because they took the time to think about it and talk it out while you will grow ever more stagnant in your corner of the house, surrounded by dried loss stains and screaming about how you're going to troll someone so hard. Your loved ones will see that your talk about learning and reading was just a masturbatory exercise in pseudo-intellectual bullshit and they will grow to hate you. They won't leave you, no, they'll do worse than that: they'll stay with you and they'll pity you.

And when you die, everyone will say nice things for a few days but what they will mean is "Thank god that pretentious, condescending fuck is dead and alone. Now his body matches his soul."

>> No.7270382

I wouldn't say the language is necessarily oppressive to women, but it definitely casts women as the "second" or "other" sex. Just the word for woman is "man" with an extra bit. Similarly, the "root" word is often used for the male version of something, and then an extra part is added for the female version, for example, "God" is male, and "goddess" female. I see how this implies the "otherness" of women, implying that the male state is the default.

>> No.7270388

>>7270369

you need to shakeup your framework of causality hombre

>> No.7270392

>>7270377
"you'll be left behind because you aren't a part of the totalitarian fem family!!"

you are an insipid retard

"your talk about learning and reading was just a masturbatory exercise in pseudo-intellectual bullshit "

that is the ideas flowing in this thread in essence, "Critical Discourse Analysis class", jesus fucking christ

>> No.7270402

>>7270392

"Why was Uncle Anon so horrible?"

"Because he laughed until it was too late to think."

>> No.7270403

>>7270377
I'd only hope that such delusional morons dislike me. It speaks worse of my aptitude if I have the approval of the lowest common denominator.

>> No.7270409

>>7270377
I'd rather be hated than be a feminine, critical theorist faggot who can only talk in newspeak and has to abide his life by a set of practices because he's too afraid of offending someone. People will remember you as a follower of trends and a boring yes man who learned all his opinions from bat shit sociologists and man hating dykes.

>> No.7270421

Newspeak ITT translates to "I don't like questioning the basic principles of life."

>> No.7270428

>>7270377
your pathetic cult is not only the blink of an eye in relation to the entirety of philosophy and human thought, but a bankrupt masturbatory ideology that exists only because retarded middle class whores like yourself live in a time far safer and more prosperous than any that has come before, and have the luxury to sit back in your comfortable first world country whinging about manspreading and about how the very language you speak is sexist. The idea that you will somehow end up on 'the right side of history' would be endearing if it wasn't so fucking sad and pathetic

>> No.7270429

>>7269507
Duh, it is fucking "mankind" m8. The word woman is literally derived from the word man. Plenty of other examples as well, doesn't take a genius to figure this shit out

>> No.7270431

>>7270421
We all know men created every civilisation, it is no surprise everything is male dominated.

>> No.7270434

>>7270428
>>7270409
>>7270403

cool it with the emoting, cowboys

it's a 4chan post

>> No.7270436

I don't hate feminists. It takes a certain kind of zeal in seeking one's own interest at the cost of others to suspend your disbelief high enough to see past the burgeoning web of unfounded assumption that makes up feminism.

If you're a man, and a feminist, that's a different story.

>> No.7270438

>>7270428

It's not about being on the right side of history, it's about entertaining opposing viewpoints instead of only caring about if it's found in Hegel's preface.

>> No.7270439

>>7270431

who created men?

>> No.7270440

>>7270434
Go get raped. You might loosen up if some bloke was willing to stick his dick in you.

>> No.7270441

>>7270439
Other men, when they fucked women.

>> No.7270445

>>7270431

Once civilisation has been created, what is the purpose of perpetuating the tools used to make it? How long do you carry the ferry with you after you cross the fucking river?

>> No.7270446

>>7270436

> feminism = seeking one's own interest at the cost of others to suspend your disbelief high enough to see past a burgeoning web of unfounded assumption

where do you kids get this stuff

>> No.7270447

>>7270241
>examples of widespread matriarchy in human society are effectively nonexistent
>The only thing to be inferred from this truth is that men are oppressive and mean, and not that women are incapable of leading society

>> No.7270450

>>7270436

"Feminism is a range of movements and ideologies that share a common goal: to define, establish, and achieve equal political, economic, cultural, personal, and social rights for women. This includes seeking to establish equal opportunities for women in education and employment"

What's wrong with feminism, anon?

>> No.7270452

>>7270441

I wonder what your fascination with your father's dick is about

>> No.7270456

>>7270447

that second line is entirely your own conjecture

>> No.7270460

>>7270447

Women are incapable of leading societies based on male values and ideologies. A man couldn't least a matriarchy, why is the inability of women to lead a patriarchy surprising?

>> No.7270461

>>7270445
Civilisations collapse without men, sorry.
>>7270439
Evolution.
>>7270450
Equality is weakness if you're above. If you're below it's personal supremacy.

>> No.7270463

>>7270450
lol, /lit/ is actually this fucking dumb now

"Opposed to both capitalism and communism, it aimed to overcome social divisions, with all parts of a homogeneous society seeking national unity and traditionalism. Nazism also vigorously pursued what it viewed as historically German territory under the doctrine of pan-germanism"

what's wrong with nazism anon? could it be that a dictionary definition doesn't tell the whole story? the horror

>> No.7270468

>>7270450
Why is it better to have a right than to not have a right? On what ultimate value does it stand? Equality? Why is it better to be equal than to be unequal?

Why would we be dumb enough to even for a moment think that two different objects could be equal (ie, the same object) when in fact they can only be equivalent to one another (they can be used for the same purpose, that is to say, they can serve as each other).

Feminism is just women thinking they can take hold of moral realism and use it as leverage against "society", but in reality, there is no society.

>> No.7270469

>>7270461

what civilization has collapsed from lack of men?

(dying)

>> No.7270471
File: 367 KB, 800x800, 1362616424619.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
7270471

>>7270463

>feminism
>nazism

/lit/ in a single post

>> No.7270475

>>7270463

>what's wrong with nazism

all parts of a homogeneous society seeking national unity and traditionalism

>> No.7270478

>>7270445
men are obsolete shitlord!

said the middle class girl in her gender studies classroom, her tuition and board paid for by her father who works in a capitalist first world country, her fuel, electricity, food and water subsidised by the government, its military watching the nation's borders and the multitude of tradespeople, workers and maintenance personnel- all men, keeping every little amenity and resource functioning.

>> No.7270486

>>7270478

you sound like a propaganda reel

>> No.7270488

>>7270478

The post was about patriarchal language, not the eradication of men you easily-triggered asshole.

>> No.7270489

>>7270469
The Zulus in Africa. After the losses they incurred in the war, mostly men, they could no longer sustain themselves. You see, men do the work, men go to war, men defend the civilisation.

>> No.7270491

>>7270486
propaganda made entirely from facts? i must be a genius, anymore gay one liners before you slink off to tumblr?

>> No.7270496

>>7270488
its you who is triggered because reality hurts

>> No.7270497

>>7270356
huh

>> No.7270502

>>7270489

Are you implying that in a society wherein gender roles are strictly enforced in a patriarchal manner that the sudden removal of men left the women unable to take over both halves of the gender workload? How would that have turned out if the gender roles were less strict?

Jesus, why is every conversation Bout feminism turned into "FEMINISTS WANT A FEMALE ONLY SOCIETY"

>> No.7270504

>>7270496

The literature board is really cranking out semiotic gems tonight.

>> No.7270507

>>7270348
>>7270346
No.

>> No.7270508

>>7270502
Feminists disagree with egalitarianism. Fact.

>> No.7270509

>>7270468
Silly anon, feminism is about equal rights- treating people equally. It's not concerned with the metaphysics of equality. Don't get too disillusioned and lose sight of what is reasonable, you'll end up sounding like a first year philosophy student

>> No.7270511

>>7270509
Why is it better to be treated equally than to be treated unequally?

>> No.7270513

>>7270502
Good luck having women defending the civilisation against men. Face it, women are weaker, stupider, and more emotional than men. That's nothing to do with gender roles. Men resist feminism because equality with women is an insult.

>> No.7270518

>>7270509
The metaphysics of equality reveal the absurdity of the social justice movement's fascination with equality. There is no equality between different objects to begin with.

>> No.7270519

>>7270508

You're really digging that dictionary feminism, aren't you? No Beavouir, no Wollenstonecraft, no Greer, no Butler, no Paglia, just "the definition clearly states".

>> No.7270521

>>7270377
I know its place in this context is purely inflammatory and all, but I want to tell you I really enjoyed this.

>> No.7270522

>>7270507
Good one.

>> No.7270524

>>7270513
*tips

>> No.7270528

>>7270511
Oh man he's a lost cause, I bet you introduce yourself as a nietzschean at parties

>> No.7270529

>>7270513

You're still basing the value of a woman, of both genders really, by presupposed patriarchal values.

>> No.7270531

>>7270524
*tips dyed hair*

>> No.7270532

>>7270502
even if a civilisation was stupid enough to achieve such a thing, the neighbouring tribe who doesn't indulge in such bullshit would quickly wipe them out

>> No.7270538

>>7270528
Sorry, you got me, I was all wrong. I'm going to go perform the evil act of treating my toothbrush and its cup unequally.

>> No.7270539

>>7270529
No, biological values.

>> No.7270541

I didn't read a word of this thread but I bet it's really bad

>> No.7270545
File: 88 KB, 410x318, tmp_6601-4238095_orig-61689681.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
7270545

>>7270539

welp

the thread has imploded

later

>> No.7270548
File: 481 KB, 1900x1440, 1442579435764.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
7270548

every feminist thread on this board degenerates into retarded fembots going into damage control overdrive, shocked and sweaty over others disagreeing with them once they leave the cult space of their gender studies class, just pick out your colour bitches

>> No.7270549

>>7270532

"It has no value because other countries don't practice it!"

I love it. I love that you don't care whether something is right or true but rather if it's practical enough to be practiced by everyone.

>> No.7270554

i want off mr. bones' wild ride.

>> No.7270556

>>7270538
WHY DID YOU [TRIGGER WARNING: REGIONAL SPELLING DIFFERENCES] CAPITALISE/CAPITALIZE SOME LETTERS BUT NOT OTHERS? ALL LETTERS SHOULD BE EQUAL.

>> No.7270557

>>7270548

kettle and pot all in one post

>> No.7270558

>>7270538
People aren't toothbrushes, anon. Surely you don't actually believe all people at birth don't deserve equal rights? Just what kind of moral standing do you take, anon?

>> No.7270560

>>7270549
if that's your retarded inference then ok fam!

its more that the soft gender neutral hugbox tribe would never survive, and all it's 'progress' would be lost even if every feminist pipe dream was accomplished

>> No.7270562

>>7270539

What would be the biological value of having a dangling sack of highly sensitive nuts?

>> No.7270564

>>7270478
>>7270491
pure ideology

>> No.7270565

>>7270549
Nothing is right or true, you spooked up cunt.
>>7270549
You're retarded.

>> No.7270566

>>7270560

>if it's not practical, it can't be true!

>> No.7270570

>>7270558
>deserve
>equal
>rights
>moral standing

I do not take any of these spooky assumptions as truth.

>> No.7270573

>>7270513
>defending

>> No.7270575

>>7270562
Testosterone and semen production.

>> No.7270576
File: 2.26 MB, 1672x2368, Slavoj_Zizek_in_Liverpool_cropped.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
7270576

>>7270564
>pure ideology

>> No.7270578

>>7270539
kek

>> No.7270580

ummm, you shouldn't cheat

>> No.7270585

>>7270575

why arent they produced more safely?

>> No.7270589

>>7270570
then go be a psychopath somewhere else. we all get along just fine with axioms for human rights

>> No.7270591

>>7270570
I'm pretty sure you adhere to some sort of morality in daily life, anon, regardless of how much you love the idea of "muh spooks"

>> No.7270595

>>7270585
It seems it isn't necessary for them to be any safer than they already are. I won't speak for evolution though, if you want to walk around genitally mutilating every preteen boy you meet, be my guest.

>> No.7270599

>>7269507
LMFAO nigga just tell your fuckwit teacher that Arabic is also sexist and biased, niigga whiteys love subverting western culture but completely back down when confronted with the disconnected between their progressive ideology and how davage cultures like the arabs are even more opressive. Nigga u go to a shitty liberal school u fucked nigha.

>> No.7270600

>>7270585
s'just how things turned out. the sperm die when heated and, for whatever reason, men ended up with a system that catered to their needs rather than the other way around

>> No.7270601

>>7270595

vapid assumption

>> No.7270603

>>7270585
The body is too hot, they're hanging so they keep cooler. Are you retarded?

>> No.7270612

>>7270591
I do not act as the result of moral forces, but rather as the result of other causal forces.
>>7270589
It is not psychopathy to reject unfounded assumptions. I'll be right here accepting reality (and nothing else) as necessary.

>> No.7270615

>>7270591
Yes, I live by the moral axiom that all actions must benefit me and, if possible, harm others.

>> No.7270617

>>7270603
Sounds like a correction for a flaw rather than the result of any kind of value system

>> No.7270619

>>7270612

what is reality?

what is necessity?

>> No.7270620

>>7270617
Evolution values what is necessary for survival.

>> No.7270621

>>7270615
nice

>> No.7270637

>>7270620

if that were the case we'd all be bacterium

>> No.7270638

>>7270620
Evolutionary forces have been for some time no longer relevant to humanity

>> No.7270644

>>7270619
I define reality and necessity in one another, for what can be necessary without being, which is its prerequisite? This "real" "necessity" is the sum of present physical phenomena.
Morality is no causal force, but the brain which is convinced of it provides sufficient force to manipulate the unaware actor in favor of their morality's creator. This is the nature of your "justice", which exists only in a rumor.

>> No.7270645

>>7270566
>>7270565

Practicality is applicability to reality, which is truth. If you're not engaging with the reality you're supposedly attempting to describe, then it's wank.

It is a fact the male of the species is primarily responsible for the hard physical work that maintains a community. Just as it has been the woman's responsibility to maintain the household that continues their bloodline. There is no judgement in these functiins, they are what they're, determined by survival and biology. True inferiority and impairment of body and mind are dispersed equally throughout population groups.

Feminists cry about their oppression as if it is the only pain in the world. Start from the fact that life sucks for a lot of people not just women and then we can do something. navel gazing in cloud castle about hetero normative hegemony in the smurfs has got to go

>> No.7270647

>>7269696
they're not using it in remotely the same way as tumblr morons, they're actually using it right...

>> No.7270648

>>7270637
Why?
>>7270638
That has nothing to do with anything and isn't true.

>> No.7270656

Wait, is /lit/ seriously having this discussion or is everyone just trolling?

>> No.7270658
File: 538 KB, 847x917, 6127814e9f0940b83a990b513a43bd93.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
7270658

>>7270612
it's psychopathy to not have innate empathy for one's fellow humans, meaning that the thought of not offering them the same basic rights is odious. you occur as naturally as we do, but your thoughts and actions, as they are not driven by the same basic axioms, are untenable from our perspective. you deserve a life as well, but please try to live in a way that minimises temptation to exploit others.

>> No.7270659

>>7270644

>the brain

dropped

>> No.7270663

>>7270656
there are some militant fembots in here who poke the coals every once in a while and let the angst spark. the thread will live on

>> No.7270668

>>7270645

in what sense does 'biology' act as a determining factor in social relations

>> No.7270673

>>7270656
The stupid /pol/tards weasel out of the woodwork just for these threads. Hide, sage, ignore as usual

>> No.7270694

>>7270658
>innate
>empathy
>fellow humans
>rights
>is odious
>naturally
>deserve a life
>minimizes temptation

What is this insane spook tower? Why is it better to minimize rather than maximize temptation? What manner of force is "deserving" what does not occur in reality? How can something be not of its own nature? I can go on, but your posts only reveal how deeply entrenched you are in the ideology.
I recognize that ideology has a utilitarian purpose, and if I was a woman I would be seeking that purpose in feminism. You either realize that what you're saying (mostly, normative statements about future events) cannot extend from logic or you don't. These statements, which do not extend from logic, extend from mere preference, and there is no good or evil, (no "odious" or "natural" or "unnatural") in our own self-interest, whether it is served or not.

>> No.7270695

>>7270312
>To be a dick
>To be a jerk
>jerkoff
>wanker
>cocksucker

>> No.7270736
File: 623 KB, 1000x870, ac1293d1a136ccb4a91d96b9b66285f7.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
7270736

>>7270694
i said flat out that it's not logical. it's innate. it's just a thing my body does, not a conclusion i came to. i can't help but care about others.

not everybody is like that, and apparently you're one of the exceptions. that's a natural occurrence as well, but please try to avoid exploiting others anyways, though i realise that, without those feelings, there's nothing "in it for you".

>> No.7270745

>>7270695
i agree that words and phrases are used in a derogatory fashion towards both, but that last one is comparing people to girls, i.e. the people who usually suck cocks, as a bad thing.

>> No.7270747

>>7270736
I will act, as before, with whatever result that causal forces bring about, and you will as well.

>> No.7270756

>>7270747
i know, but, because of what i am, i can't help but ask anyways. thinking about you hurting others hurts me as well.

>> No.7270757

>>7270745
>women usually suck cocks
Get off xvideos, kiddo.
>>7270695
These are examples of hyper masculinity, stating that unless the man has conquered the Woman he is to be insulted, as spilling seed outside of a vagina is shameful. This promotes harassment of women and even rape.

>> No.7270761

>>7270745
"Cocksucker" infers nothing bad about "people who usually suck cocks" and it infers everything bad about homosexuality. It only speaks to the equivalence in language that this insult exists. We do not call women we dislike "pussy-lickers", because we appreciate the licking of pussy (regardless of who does it) but we condemn for a man to such a cock.

>> No.7270762

>>7270694
your post reeks of ideology too tbqh

>> No.7270767

>>7270762
Thanks. Please point out my unfounded assumptions so that I can investigate them.

>> No.7270770

>>7270756
You're a designated beta. A subservient, weak creature.

>> No.7270778

>>7270761
Tell that to a Catholic Italian you problematic shit lord.

>> No.7270782

>>7270757
Can't tell if troll or not.

>> No.7270786

>>7269507
can't be any worse than the romance languages

>> No.7270790

>>7270778
I'm sorry, I just don't have the necessary familiarity with catholic italians to understand this joke.

>> No.7270796

>>7270767
we do not experience life as pure logic. ergo, it must more.

muh logic cannot satisfyingly describe states of consciousness. to deny the ineffability of experience, and how innate and self-evident moral truths appear to be for the majority of human populations, is to debase it.

science has its place. until it can fully and intuitively explain realiy it falls short as a theory of everything. stop getting cucked by fedora-tier ideologies lmfao

>> No.7270800

>>7270761
the overwhelming negativity towards male homosexual acts comes mostly from men. the women who aren't driven to act otherwise by religious affiliations tend towards yaoi fan clubs etc. also, as you mentioned, far fewer people get angry about lesbians, and society at large doesn't give a shit about female to male transsexuals but treats male to female transsexuals as "super gays", mocking them accordingly. how does this not support that "a man being like a girl" is viewed more negatively by guys than "a woman being like a guy", and thus "men are in some way superior to women"? if the negativity arose solely from the thought of gender nonconformity then wouldn't it be applied equally to both sides?

>> No.7270809

>>7270796
>innate and self-evident moral truths appeal to be for the majority

You really racked up a streak here. You should consider a career in freestyle rap if you know how to so blindly lay mediocre prose end to end like this.

>> No.7270814

>>7270796
>gender roles exist because of patriarchal societies even though most people find them to be self evident
>our current, western morality is innate in humans because most people find it self evident

>> No.7270821
File: 82 KB, 500x628, 69cdc3859d459a9ad31086e8a02a43c5.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
7270821

>>7270770
since we're resorting to insults, my boyfriend loves me just the way i am

>> No.7270824

>>7270809
lmao dude you're living in la-la land if you think "most people don't want to hurt other people" is something i pulled out of my ass. get a grip

>> No.7270836

>>7270824
Whether people want to hurt others or not extends from their preference. Is "good" the satisfaction of the majority's preference and is "evil" the negation of it? I'll make sure I roll up with one more skeleton gang rapist than there is in the house next time me and my fellow skeleton gang rapists are up for a bit of the old in and out. With our majority in favor of skeleton gang rape, it would be evil for our plans to fail.

>> No.7270847

>>7270836
dude this might just be the dumbest argument i ever read on this shit board. congrats i guess

>> No.7270849

>>7270847
Face it dumbass, people just want things. You're conflating self-interest with good and evil. I'm not surprised, after all, you've had people telling you that their self interest is good (and that you should therefore serve it) your entire life. Move along. You haven't said a single thing I wasn't already aware of the fallacy of.

>> No.7270851

>>7270756
I find that your entitlement and self-righteousness is disgusting in individuals and disappointing in society. Unlike you, however, I don't expect people to conform to my emotional biases.

>> No.7270855

>>7270377
>>7270402

>accept my ideology or discuss it on my terms or you're going to be miserable for the rest of your life

Comical. Is this what constitutes feminist discourse? Is this the product of all the time and energy put into gender studies degrees? This is going to be the the ideology that killed free speech? If only our adversaries were more impressive, at least then I wouldn't feel as though the lunatics had taken over the asylum.

>> No.7270870

>>7270851
it's not an expectation; it's a plea. i can't bear the thought of people hurting. i have to do something, but, in this situation, there's nothing else to be done. it's not an "i'm better than you" thing. as i said above, some people are not like me; they occur naturally and are still human. my being like this is not a choice and it doesn't make me "better". it's just how things are.

>> No.7270872

>>7270855
I too dream of a feminist ideology so opaque and entrenched in complex terminology that I cannot even tell how they plan to make me serve their interests. A super-feminism whose great depth would require logistic genius to truly plumb its depths, and at some point we would be poring over increasingly dense literature trying to figure it out.

Unfortunately, what we have is "I WANT IT!", The Ideology.

>> No.7270877

>>7270870
This is some strong ideology.
>>7270849
Could you define good and evil and the criteria used to decide whether something is good or evil?

>> No.7270882

>>7270849
no I'm pretty sure most people don't want to hurt others factors outside of just self-interest, sorry you live in edgy anime land. keep tipping that fedora brosef. i get it everyone's spooked by their self-interest and you're just riding the wave brotheeerrrrrrr

>> No.7270886

>>7270872
That'd be pretty cool actually, then when I finally figured out I could at least say to myself "Those clever bitches deserved it, we're outmatched." Instead I get shit like this. It's a shame, really. At least German nationalism had fascinatingly crafted mythology, all we get from these people is whinging and shitty political pamphlets that somehow pass as fiction.

>> No.7270888
File: 52 KB, 543x960, 1443587199246.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
7270888

>>7270851
lel is this real life?

>> No.7270891

>>7270800
>the overwhelming negativity towards male homosexual acts comes mostly from men.
lel just take a look at these threads
>hurr i hate women
>hurr u must be gay if you hate them!

>> No.7270894

>>7270877
maybe your reality is the superior one and i'm just a weak girl who can't overcome her emotions and become a pure logical entity. i can't approach things that way; it just doesn't work. i'm not sure why you're trying to shame me for that.

>> No.7270896

>>7270589
lel suddenly you've jumped back to the days of Voltaire and washington

>> No.7270897

>>7270891
Women are the first people to jump to calling a man a cocksucker and a faggot when they displease them.

>> No.7270908

>>7270877
"good" and "evil" are words that people use to attracts others to serve their own self-interest because it causes the goals of their self-interest to be confused with, to be mixed in with the goals of others.

Person A and Person B have different ideas of what is "evil", ie what does not serve their interests, be it to feel good about themself, or gain some material benefit, but if Person A claims that something he dislikes is "evil", there's some chance of Person B confusing Person A's "evil" with what he personally dislikes. This capacity for causing a misunderstanding is the origin of moral realism, and the true use of "good" and "evil" as words.

>> No.7270912

>>7270894
because this is 4chan, where everyone gets shamed
girlcucks don't get a free pass because of muh memegina,

>> No.7270915

>>7270908
>look what i learned today at school guys!!

>> No.7270919

>>7270882
Your post only encourages me by demonstrating that you don't understand a single thing I'm saying. I believe that only a person who understands nothing could disagree with me, and you are only stroking my confirmation bias by providing me with a picture perfect example of a person who disagrees with me and understands nothing.

>> No.7270923

>>7270915
Nice self-insertion. Unfortunately for your assumptions, I am not a child. What do you learn at school today, anon? Are you anxious to share, perhaps in (what you think is) my place?

>> No.7270924
File: 1.50 MB, 230x172, fedora'dgentleman.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
7270924

>I'm a woman

>> No.7270932

>>7270894
You're full of ideology and just accepting it. Read Zizek.

>> No.7270934
File: 338 KB, 937x937, 1443410198063.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
7270934

>>7270924

>> No.7270947

>>7270934
Arr rook same

>> No.7270952

>>7270934
Boy oh boy do I ever have the yellow fever.

>> No.7270969

>>7270934
did they all get their boobs at the same clinic? lmao

>> No.7270970

>>7270952
Toxic masculinity at its finest. No wonder you like asians, you're a small dick virgin.

>> No.7270977

>>7270934
they all have practically identical body proportions

>> No.7270979

>>7270919
>>7270923
there is a system

autonomous agents exist within this system known as life

when life behaves in a certain way, in ways that from life's point of view it calls religion, or wisdom, or living the good life, these agents subjectively experience their reality as progressively more pleasant, safe, and inter-connected. the qualities that promote this state we call morals or virtue.

in the farthest extremes from this state, there is suffering and aversion. no one would argue that there aren't behaviors that can cause extreme suffering to oneself and other agents within this system. these behaviors we call vices, or evil

ignorance of these principles does not disprove them. just because im with a guy who thinks gangrape is okay doesn't somehow overturn the cosmic order. they are blind to their vices. i know hipsters like you two fags think everyone is the same and quality is a spook but even if the system is intrinsically meaningless itself the morality - the proper relationship of individual autonomous agents with one another - is innate, and expressly promoted by, its deepest levels of structure.

>> No.7270982

>>7270932
what i'm full of is oxytocin (among other things).

>> No.7270985

>>7270932
stop memeing so hard. youre embarrassing yourself

>> No.7270986

yo /lit/, when are you guys going to rise up and cast out all the marxism, all the postmodern discourse? thank god for /b/ and /pol/, they're the only boards that scare away most of the tumblr cretins

>> No.7270989

>>7270934
gonna need the title of that video anon

>> No.7270990

>>7270970
>has sexual interest in a certain aesthetic
>uses the colloquial term as a joke
>toxic masculinity

So should I just be gay or something?

>> No.7270992

>>7270982
Self importance?
>>7270985
>m'lady needs me

>> No.7270993

ITT: Feminists stir up the inevitable anti feminist reaction they know they will get, passing it off as muhsoggyny to reaffirm their zeal in the gender studies cult

Shameful cyber violence towards women on a Nicaraguan mining instructional forum tbh fam

>> No.7270994

>>7270986
>cast out all the marxism, all the postmodern discourse
why would we ever do that

>> No.7271000
File: 7 KB, 225x225, 1434606792487.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
7271000

>>7270994
C'mon nigga

>> No.7271001

>>7270993
> Nicaraguan mining instructional forum

I gotta admit, that's pretty fucking great anon.

>> No.7271002

>>7270989
MIRD 141

>> No.7271009

disgusting misogynists, this is why Zoe Quinn and Anita Sarkesian are fighting so hard to get cyber violence against women to be acted on by the UN, free speech is damaging to women and patriarchal, once it is removed, society will be more tolerant and diverse, and we can begin abolishing the English language as a problematic patriarchal edifice. You perma virgin shitlords are on the wrong side of history kiddo

>> No.7271010

>>7270994
seriously though, please leave. this isn't the forum for you. I'm not sure how tumblr works, but surely there's some sort of board or forum or blog for literature discussion.

I'm not even trying to engage in "muh secret club"ism, but this websites community just isn't right for you

>> No.7271018

>>7271010
whoops,
*website's

>> No.7271022
File: 336 KB, 1920x1040, From Up On Poppy Hill (2011) 1080p [Jpn 5.0 & Eng] Blu-ray (Studio Ghibli).mp4_20151022_003334.734.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
7271022

>>7271002
thanks anon

>> No.7271042

>>7271010
And why's that

>> No.7271044
File: 18 KB, 156x256, image.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
7271044

Words are meaningless without the application of meaning, everyone is biased and hellbent on idividuality, looking at language from the objective/"correct" way may reveal some sexist/patriarchal roots, an anon made some good points such as god/goddess, but humans are all biased hypocritical shits who really just do what they want, and live lives attaching emotions and meanings and musings to our languages, im sure that the sexism in language, however much there is, must be ignorable, because no one but we stupid pseudo intellectual fuckwits care enough to fret over these things, however i will anyways. Just resign

>> No.7271053
File: 24 KB, 480x480, image.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
7271053

>>7271044
Id also like to say we're all stupid and wrong anyways, consciousness was a mistake by god when will the great abortion swallow us

>> No.7271064

How much do you want to bet nobody in this thread has read anything by Wittgenstein?

>> No.7271079

>>7269507
Speech itself does not hold power - discourse does, which is that combination of signifiers with some form of power - basic Foucault that this class's professor probably thinks is her homie, would call her a dumbass.

A baby that says 'nigger' probably wouldn't be using what we call a racial slur, there's no intentionality. Grammar, and communication as a whole, is based off of intentionality.

Guattari has some good texts that defend the use of 'slurs', probably thinks saying 'fuck English' would be even worse

Guattari, being Foucaults butt buddy

>> No.7271084

>>7271064
Wittgenstein isn't the -best- response to this tier of sjw- it seems like his analysis of language may be consistent with like, Yancys claims about white priveldge. So it would just make discourse unfixed, but not unoppressive

>> No.7271094

>>7270212
thx for decidedly demonstrating their point

>> No.7271109

>>7270377
copypasta?

>> No.7271117

>>7271084
Witty says language is only made possible by the commonalities between humans. That means that if language is intrinsically sexist, then mankind is intrinsically sexist. And if mankind is intrinsically sexist, and it's impossible to change unless by depriving them of the freedom of communication.

>> No.7271242

>>7269507
>>7270429
Well 'men' is a general term for both men and women. Then we have the word 'mankind' or the family of man, which is again denotes both men and women. Women are huge drivers of language. It would seem to me that by adding 'wo' to men we aren't lessening anything in quality rather delineating it from the main. Like a diamond. It is a 'stone' like any other, but it glistens and so we add the prefix 'gem' to it. If patriarchal means that we venerate and hold in higher esteem women over run-of-the-mill, ordinary, common-or-garden men, than yes it is. And we do do that, every single day.

Women helped set the language up to appraise themselves and now it seems that they use that very language which honours them to cry foul. This would be laughable if it wasn't for the fact that they remain pampered, while it is run-of-the-mill men who mostly die homeless in the street, from suicide and from wars.