Sell this book to me, a reactionary right-winger. What would I gain from reading this book?
 |
 CRIME Shirt $21.68 |
|
Sell this book to me, a reactionary right-winger. What would I gain from reading this book?
Sell this book to me, a reactionary right-winger. What would I gain from reading this book?
|
CRIME Shirt $21.68 |
|
>Sell this book to me.
Sir, this is IQfy.
help me sir i am indian
No. Go back to your shithole.
You will understand opposing ideas. If you're truly secure in your own ideology, and believe it to be unshakeable then why not read it? It's always good to know the ideology and beliefs of people who oppose you
I feel like mine are unshakable, not OP but I’m a reactionary and on the right, however I’m not about to read some troonys psychosexual power fantasies.
In OPs case he sounds sort of interested so he can read it if he wants to understand opposing sides so he can build an argument against their beliefs without strawmanning
Isnt that what most people do in debates anyways? You couldn't possibly summarize an opponent's argument without falling back on such foundations.
Why?
right wingers got to start be less tight assed about how people want to express themselves. I don't understand what you find so scary about gender not being some solid written in stone universal
A lot of times right wingers are the stupidest mf’ers on the planet.
I’ve noticed they often believe in rigid distinctions. Arguments devolve into semantics. They’re the type that would argue why a hot dog is or is not a sandwhich…instead of recognizing that or both has and lacks certain sandwhich properties. They’re almost automatically fixated around order especially semantic ordering.
And they have an inability to see things in shades of grey or a spectrum. I mean…What the frick do they do when they find an example of something in the real world that doesn’t match their prescribed, fixated, autistic definition in their head?
wait for it to trickle down
>They’re the type that would argue why a hot dog is or is not a sandwhich…instead of recognizing that or both has and lacks certain sandwhich properties.
Yeah, you just sound dumb.
No - A woman, man or sandwhich are all imprecise definitions…sort of like platonic ideals.
From there we can find examples of these in nature. We can even say things like Chuck Norris has more man qualities than Michael Jackson. Or a ham and cheese has more sandwhich qualities than a hot dog.
But - we can’t define a precise point where a man exists and a man doesn’t.
Therefore transgender females or males can be identified by the gender of their choosing. They may not have all the qualities but they have some of them and therefore can qualify to be represented by whatever signifier they chose.
Now its everybody’s choice to feel how close they are to the platonic ideal. But it’s not possible to devise a specific demarcation point.
Right wingers can’t grasp this because to them muhhh don’t have ovaries!
I don't think I've ever seen a post as reddit as this. The disgustingly crude reddit spacing. Food analogies. Boomer pop culture references like Chuck Norris and Michael Jackson. Borderline obsessive hatred and misunderstanding of the right. An extremely poor argument said with an air of the surest confidence and condescending tone. All in some twisted frustration to make you believe trannies are real women.
Oh and I forget the half-assed pop philosophy references. All in all she (he) needs to go back.
Criticizing the structure and style of my pos and not the content….again proving my point you’re one dumb mf’er.
All these assblasted replies and not a single rebuttal
Keep seething righties (more like wrongies)
>food analogy
Take your hrt, troony.
Are you new here? Because you need to shut the frick up and go back.
Why are you even here
Why are you scared of fascism. Why do you hate people who just like a different political system
>What would I gain from reading this book?
Accelerationism
It's a book more often mentioned than actually read — canonical because it was one of the first, at the right place at the right time, of queer theory, which cemented this book and Butler's career. The 'troubling' or performativity of gender is surprisingly not much argued in it, and instead a large part of the book is about Irigaray and Lacan — which is not so directly important to anyone invoking Gender Trouble™, pro or contra.
I am mostly a right winger and I wrote my bachelor thesis about this work.
> What would I gain from reading this book?
I do not really know what you are looking for.
Would love to hear your thoughts.
Anything specific? Because I do not have an overarching critique of her ideas. Her main aim of GE book, as she herself states, is not to present a new theory that people could follow, but to explain certain already existing phenomena (people who do not conform to traditional gender roles). Her work is devoid of any overly resentful, reactive critique (that is typical of left leaning literature), is pretty nuanced and engaging, she uses her tools (post-structuralist theory) skillfully and IMO she succeeds in her aim, she provides a consistent and robust theoretical account of how the existence of non-conforming people could be understood.
What I do not like in this type of litėrature is the "by-product" of universalizing such theories and extrapolating them to explain typical heterosexual identities. I just do not subscribe to the idea that the traditional man-woman gender roles exist because of this mystical heteronormative matrix (basically a discource, that is, only a symbolical, arbitrary construct). I lean on evolutionary psychology when I think about men-women gender roles and favour the explanation that there are certain inborn dispositions that reward us when we (women or men, understood in biological sense) act in certain ways. IMO gender roles are mostly born out of this reward system. This crucial line of thinking is ignored in Butler's account. But then again, her main aim is not to explain why there are typical, traditional gender roles.
A few words about her popularity: traditional gender roles are just certain traits that helped us survive and reproduce for thousands of years in conditions that are harsh and unwelcoming. Since we see a big progress in our living conditions in the last 100 or so years, it naturally follows, that the incentives to adopt and maintain traditional gender roles are running out and those roles are more and more perceived as fossils, as rigid, useless forms. Ergo, there are more prople who do not conform to it. Butler's theory (or, more specific, the popularity of it) is just a symptom of this slow shift.
Completely agree.
You seem like a cool guy who “gets” academia
Nothing.
This was the one thing I couldn't get through in college. I realize I'm a midwit, but I swear to God, I would read a few sentences and have no bloody clue what she was getting at. Thank goodness for the internet, otherwise I would've failed the paper otherwise
Good thing I never went to university. I'm too reactionary and too much of a yokel to attend. Good thing year zero is upon us.
From a purely technical perspective the book isn't all that well written and somewhat hard to parse.
If you do read it I think you'll find that you don't hate it as much as you probably expect to.
>t. read the book