Academia life

Yeah but most professors that have been around awhile just add women and stir.
Which ultimately didn't bother me either way and appeased those insistent on "discovering women's voices."

Ah, I see. So TERF's have a more conservative feminist ideology. I guess I just meant that even if this war is going on, it's relatively small in the scope of our culture right now. It seems more present because of the news than it actually is. I've never heard someone use the word TERF irl.

That wasn't my experience and I just graduated. There was 1 women's studies course offered and my uni has almost 40k students. I think that there are radical feminists who teach, but they're still a minority, especially when you consider all of the other disciplines outside of the humanities. They're a small subset of an already small group. This whole thing feels more like an intellectual battle that is fun to have online because radicals are such easy targets.

>WAAAAH I'M THE MOST SPECIAL PRINCESS
>STOP GIVING THEM ATTENTION, GIVE ME ATTENTION
>IT'S NOT FAIR, THEY HAVE PENISES, I HAVE A VAGINA
t. TERF

Attached: 1458541109205.jpg (1000x668, 175K)

the sad thing is that this isn't all too far from reality

Women can give birth, how are they not the most special princesses?

That professor's name? Margaret Atwood.

Honestly, I don't know if I'm the exception, but I'm rarely confronted with anything feminist related on campus.

I have studied feminist lit and have tackled feminist issues in some classes, but it was all balanced discussion of weight the pros and cons of that kind of mindset. I've seen nothing that amounts to the kind of "indoctrination" that's so frequently talked about here.

>Be in creative non-fiction class
>have dyke teacher with international lesbian haircut no.4
>most of the books assigned are either by black female writers, or a gay/queer studies alumni that made it somewhat big.
>Try not to pay too much attention to it
>But its all these writers write about "muh gay" "muh oppression"
>Have a feeling my oneitis turned lesbian because of this class
>Still attend this class so I can btfo the class with my knowledge on DFW, in the coming weeks
How's everyone else's English curriculum?

Attached: Accurate Prediction.png (555x445, 369K)

what books?

Citizen by Claudia Rankine
Argonauts and Bluets(Actually ok) by Maggie Nelson
Short poetry by some famous lesbian who married to a guy and then came out
Calamities by Renee Gladman
Wayne Koestenbaum's 1980s and my other essays
Some short stories such as Losing Your Mother, and other stories about racial identity.
I dont think there's anything wrong with writing about your identity but the market is so flooded with these stories you know? I can't help but think that in order to make it you have to some LGBTQ person or female writer talking about her sexuality.

Attached: B63E59AB-FA11-459C-886E-1F3E1ACFDD80.jpg (1224x1505, 234K)

I agree completely. I think that people like to pretend it's much worse than it is so that they have something to argue against and laugh at. In reality it's not that bad at all. Every time that I was confronted with it in class it was never forced down my throat.

I've only read Citizen but it's pretty interesting. It's also a high-selling book of poetry that's not Rupi-tier. Maybe check out her other "American Lyric" Don't Let Me Be Lonely, which still has race involved but is a bit more focused on media and pharmaceuticals. And possibly check out some of her other poetry to get a stronger sense of what she is doing in particular in trying to craft this "American lyric" form.

And then check out The Cybergypsies (Indra Sinha), which is the best creative non-fiction from the past 20 years.

when you get down to it, trannies are the most attention starved narcissists around, even getting called a faggot who needs to commit suicide counts as a positive stimuli to these "people". I can see why feminists dont like trannies, who despite the crude woman costume (think the cockroach alien in men in black) are stereotypical male incels who think women owe them sex.

Thanks for the recommendations, I've read Citizen for one of my previous classes, I found the Serena Williams and Zidane portion the most interesting to me. I liked what she did with the "I feel most colored when I'm against a white canvas(I think that was the line)". We didn't discuss it much as most of the discussion was unfortunately more about how a woman read the book out loud on a Trump Rally and got the someone in the crowd riled up. It was Fall 2016.

I am going to attend a slam poetry event and recite a warrior ode to the glory of the white race

Godspeed

Attached: D4A5B2EF-20DE-48DD-B38D-252170087B92.jpg (1334x750, 114K)

It's "sharp white background," but yes. That section is good, and she does a bit of her own thing with it later in the book with the "In memory of..." text.

Zoomers gotta help the boomers up their meme game. Imagine how broken she'd be if a bunch of boomers just started ironically jazz snapping along.

PoCs and queers cannot write literature, they can only churn out by the book propaganda tracts for the ideology of managerial liberalism. All those different identities and yet they all sound the same, deracinated middle class victims and consumers who cling to a semblance of identity , easily controlled by corpogovernamental globohomo with superhero movies and pop music.

what would trump's stand be? don't say D4C

>Oscar Wilde

Homosexuality stopped being cool after Obama and the legalisation of gay marriage. If Burroughs or Genet had lived to see this world they would have become straight and joined the alt right

The thing is that I don't doubt that it actually is as bad as some people claim it is in certain places, but I doubt it speaks for the majority. I think it's more to do with anti-feminists blowing things way out of proportion because they can't even stand the mere mention of such ideas. Meanwhile in reality, I've not only been taught gender issues in an actually insightful way, but I've spoken with girls who are very openly feminist (I'm talking stickers on bags and wearing graphic tees open about it) and found that they've all been fairly approachable and friendly.

>I've spoken with girls who are very openly feminist (I'm talking stickers on bags and wearing graphic tees open about it)
>women are impressionable, lack conviction and do things for the sake of visual conformity
who would have known?

Yeah, it's ironic that they flame feminists for not wanting to hear any other point of view when that's precisely what they're doing to the feminists. It was the same for me. The card-carrying feminists never made me feel bad for being a white male, and they wanted to hear my point of view.
Sure, in some places the anti-male ones exist, but that's by far the minority of feminists. The constant feminist bashing on lit annoys me because it's so out of sync with how things actually are. I think it's more about contriving an idea of irrational and combative feminism that allows you to feel superior and reasonable when you make fun of it.

You must get on with girls well. I'm sure they love talking to you lmao. You wouldn't by chance have developed any resentment towards them because of past rejection?

>That cliché answer.
>Not a conformist

i get on with women just fine; however, your knee-jerk reaction strongly suggests you harbour your own fair share of mental illnesses and feelings of inadequacy
am i on the right track?

Oh no, sweetie, are you getting upset? You mean the answer that every normally functioning person without autism would respond to your drivel with somehow denotes mental illness? Aww, it's funny how much that reveals about your own small man syndrome.

this is what unironic mental illness looks like

Please walk me through how

You're talking like a poorly-written harry potter character whilst arguing about politics on a loli porn forum

As usual progressives remain fixated on traditional and easily recognizable forms of "evil", which they presume to have been motivated by negative emotions like fear, callousness, and hatred.

Nobody seems to know what feminism is, historical consciousnesd is vanishingly low as the old guard is quickly tarred as problematic. Christopher Lasch (a brocialist white male and known crypto catolic traditionalist) wrote the most interesting criticism of feminism i've ever read: feminism is really an expression of the promethean drive, made possible by technology. This is pretty clear in the works of second wavers such as shulamith firestone.The pill, the fall of industrial society and the rise of the consumer ethic, abortion and now gender altering hormones and surgery. Social change follows technological change not the other way around. If trans people freak you out, wait till you hear about CRISPR. The injunction to be free and enjoy, never looking back on the dark past has replaced all other value systems. Pop feminism is merely an extension of the self focused mindset of middle class consumers and aspiring managers. Once upon a time advertisements told women to buy cosmetics so they could impress men, now ads tell women to buy cosmetics as a form of self care, so they can please themselves.

good post

only up until 30-35 user

>presume
As usual anti-feminists disregard any feminist criticism as merely demonizing them and inaccurately attributing negative motivations for their point of view.

They're not evil, but they're wrong. Often times men have negative knee-jerk reactions to feminism from feelings of insecurity. It's been made into a meme, but it's true. I don't even strongly identify with the left on any of these issues, but it's crazy how much of a reaction they produce on this site. So out of sync with reality.

>knee-jerk reactions
>feelings of insecurity
try formulating your own argument next time, retard

You're not allowed to share an opinion that a group holds?

what the end of feminism can be questioned in trying to resolve here is somewhat clear.
The removable of female biological weakness.
By transferring power through accelerationist technology women hope to reverse the time of traditional male/female physical dialogue and equip bionic arms that could mangle any rapist or minor harasser without fear of failure.
In this sense you could argue that the modern woman hopes to use technology to arm itself into becoming the matriarchal spider woman who destroys everything and anything that doesn't serve her solipsistic values.

>feminists constantly shit on men
>haha wow why are you so insecure about our criticisms
Feminism is cancer. Besides feminists have yet to actually be feminist, eg. make an all female company that doesn't go under. They're literally still just saying 'men pls give us stuff and protect us'

Is that actually what you think feminism is?

that's what they actually do, I don't give a shit what they pretend it's about in academia

The only feminists I have any respect for are the radfems that try to make all female communes.

I have to take a diversity class in literature, I forget all the options, but shit like women in literature, lesbians, gays (yes, separate classes for fags and dykes), native american, blacks, etc
No idea which one I'll take, Native American one probably

>Besides feminists have yet to actually be feminist, eg. make an all female company that doesn't go under.

You're not wrong

What evidence do you have that that's what they do other than what you read in the news and see on Facebook?

>Besides feminists have yet to actually be feminist, eg. make an all female company that doesn't go under

How is this the only way for feminism to be deemed successful? They aren't trying to establish a female-only enclave in the middle of western society, retard

to prove that women arent completely fucking useless in the workplace

The culture war is in broad terms a distraction. We should be thinking about what being human really means, what is really worth preserving and worth fighting for.Autonomy is good, having control of your lifeworld is good but its become increasingly hard todo. The minimal subject of late capitalism exists in a constant state of multimedia narcosis, unable to distinguish the permanent, from The flickering flow of ephemeral images that surrounds us. I think identity based movements have failed in important ways: they have been instrumentalised by mass society, havent been able to sustain this autonomy, people are increasingly isolated and deprived of roots, identities are assigned by faceless bureaucratic bodies. To be an advocate and an activist for oneself an entrepreneur for oneself isnt that just a new form of discipline?

It's one thing taking care of yourself but another to champion that as some kind of virtue.
An activist who is righteous uses his self towards a cause greater than himself, it's not the self that makes his cause great but what his produced through his cause.
There is nothing to show for a human's value if he simply does nothing outside himself, it's invisible and quite unreasonable to expect such a person to see something in you in that respect.
Also I detest 'late capitalism' as a descriptor, we don't know when capitalism will fall therefore it's impossible to tell outside of paranoia when exactly it's failing. Just as Germans in 1930 could hardly see WWII

Its 'Late' as in recent.narcissism is baked into the medium, people enact a representation of themselves on social media, the logic of their daily lives is therapeutic, what will make me feel good?

I think you're underestimating people a lot, maybe you are young I can't say. Most people on social media (even as spectators) past a certain age condemn themselves for more than one petty reason.

Look into course descriptions but also professors. I fulfilled my gender requirement through a women-centric "great writers" style course taught by a professor who didn't care about gender issues at all and just liked the poets and the department was happy to have more courses with gen ed appeal. For my race requirement I took African American Lit with a cranky old woman who seemed to have given up on teaching (and life), and we covered very little actual content. It wasn't even heavy political bullshit. It was like a high school American history class planned the course as a small project.

>gender requirement
>race requirement
What? Is this a Uni wide thing, or just and English degree thing?

The point of the school is to learn that you need to leave there. Academics are literal failures of the society and they are nothing more than clowns for our entertainment.

>300 level Women's Literature course taught by women's studies professor
Imagine paying actual money to do this to yourself

Students uni-wide had to take a course in each of these four categories.

Attached: requirements.png (961x466, 46K)

if this is for a chinese studies class, the prof should know the field better than you, just bring it up.
anecdote as well: one of my profs is poc and he researches in chinese philosophy

based and good job

TERFs are awful

Why are TERFs so malligned? From what i've seen trannies are stereotypical incels who derive their conception of sex and gender from fetishistic japanimation, one hundred percent of them are obsessed with anime to an unhealthy degree, its completely understandable women feel viscerally repelled by them. See that's why people dislike you, You seem to think others are obliged to accept you and find you sexually attractive, or else they are bigots who should be reported to the PC police for thoughtcrime.

feminism does nothing to liberate the talk about psychological violence on men from women

feminism does nothing to liberate the talk of raped men inside a household

feminism favorizes the abortion whithout even the requirement to inform the father

feminism does nothing against coerced paternity

feminism does nothing about the inequality favouring women on the dating game

feminists actually do not promote intellectual independence as a men is considered a sexist scumbag as soon as he disagrees with them or even try to nuance their positions

do you still believe that the feminists fight for equality ?

False
False
Somewhat true
False
Only attractive women are favoured
Absolutely false

Tarring all feminists with the same brush is extremely disingenuous. It’s not an anti-male movement fundamentally.

Keyword is can. Most women load themselves up with birth control and play follow the leader to the cock carousel until they are incapable of effective pair-bonding. We should be protecting women, including from themselves

On Shulamith Firestone. Doesnt it remind you of that one Houellebecq novel?
>Firestone is unusual in taking the premise so often used by conservative thinkers of one stripe or another – that women and men are recognisably and naturally different both biologically and culturally – but uses this as the background for her projected revolution, by accepting that thus far history has not yet managed to discover a way out of this predicament. For Firestone, it is not the case that anatomy is destiny, but rather that it has been, in fact that for the whole of human history this has been true, but need not be any longer. Firestone can, without too much difficulty, be seen as a thinker belonging to a certain strand of Enlightenment thinking, not the liberal branch that would advocate slow and steady social reform and change within existing institutions, but the kind of thinking that wholeheartedly advocates the integration of technology into human life and the revolutionary potential for its transformative possibilities. She acknowledges that at present technology can and has been used for disastrous and oppressive ends (forcing women into sterilisation programmes, permitting doctors control over women’s reproductive capacity, etc.), but that this is not an inherent feature of technology as such. Just as her ‘vulgar’ materialism puts her closer to La Mettrie than to Marx, her pro-technological approach puts her closer to an Enlightenment thinker such as Voltaire, with his celebration of science, than to many of her 1970s theoretical peers, the latter of whom are more concerned with the horrific legacy of the gas chambers or the impact of human beings on their environment than with a bright new future of machines. Indeed, Firestone’s attitude towards the environment and any negative human impact is arguably rather cavalier. It is probably too late, she says, to redress natural balances. All we can hope for is to establish an artificial, (man-made) balance ‘in place of the natural one, thus also realizing the original goal of empirical science: human mastery

libcom.org/library/toward-cybernetic-communism-technology-anti-family-nina-power

The irony of women trying to control what men think and do is absolutely hilarious.

Feminism means radfem now, at least on the internet. Libfem is just the normal position for most people.

>so I can btfo the class with my knowledge on DFW

that´s not how you do it

Attached: 1512047425037.jpg (750x720, 35K)

>Newfag misses the sweetie posting.
jinkeys scoob.

all i gained from this was that you dislike scarves and aren’t particularly adept at making up stories

>feminism does nothing about the inequality favouring women on the dating game

imagine reaching this hard

Attached: CB63846C-CE38-4954-BC56-68C88D7C4C45.jpg (800x800, 117K)

Just ban whammen from higher education already. It's a huge waste of resources and their presence is turning the humanities into drivel. It's better for humanity as a whole for a woman with above average IQ to have 10 children than to LARP as a thinker.

Intelligence is inversely correlates with the number of children you have. A lot of this has to do with the being smart enough to release that having more children than you can financially support is retarded.

It doesn't matter what the majority cares for or not, the majority never led anything

>Women can give birth
exactly, they should be treated as pest

You'd have to be a real sucker to think OP was trying to pass this story off as real.

Interesting. Let's see the data from which you're drawing your correlation. For what confounding factors have you controlled?

>Intelligence is inversely correlates with the number of children you have.
>our society is literally breeding dumb people
Absolutely based modernity

But they'll just move the goalposts. If the company goes under it's because the patriarchy made the laws, if an all female government fails it's because not the whole world is female, etc.

>This is america

Feminism is practically omnipresent in the discourse. It’s not possible to ignore what they’re saying, and other viewpoints don’t use their hegemonic position to silence others.

>Sure, in some places the anti-male ones exist, but that's by far the minority of feminists.
The problem is since feminism is some sort of a do-goody banner now, these are left completely unchecked to do as they please.

It’s not omnipresent in a way that’s obnoxious, which is what was being said. Of course, it’s present to the degree that if you started spouting Otto Weiniger-tier opinions on women, you’d get laughed off the campus, but in my experience feminist discourse is presented as one theory among many with strengths and weaknesses to be examined in the approach.

There’s nothing about checking your privilege, or hating men or whatever. The only omnipresent aspect of feminism are the basic egalitarian principles that they should be treated as human beings and that they face some gender specific problems.

Maybe it’s different in some places, but my exposure to feminism has been fairly modest and reasonable.

Otto Weininger tier theories were the norm for thousands of years until feminism completely took over about a century ago

You think feminism is reasonable because youre a Feminist, and can't conceive of not being one

yikes

Lack of proper sanitation was also the norm for thousands of years, but that doesn't make it any better than what we have now, especially since (much like Weininger's theories) any claims defending that state of affairs were completely unsubstantiated.

false equivalence

Well traditional societies do have the benefit of not going extinct due to lack of children. But yeah women pretending to be CEOs is a good tradeoff

TERFs are more radical, they come from the old school like 70s and 80s feminism. Female supremacy type shit. Look up Germaine Greer

>inaccurately attributing negative motivations for their point of view.
This is the problem with criticizing the left. You can get them to admit that they despise and destroy everything you hold dear or wish to preserve, but they will always end it by telling you that their intentions are without malice. They are so incapable of self-reflection that they can not even remotely comprehend someone finding their sense of justice perverse or their utopias unbearable.

>open ongoing master's thesis file
>ctrl f : "otherness"
>9872 results

wat do

Buy a scouter and crush it.

No, his analogy is just fine. He is saying that an appeal to the age of an idea, like the age of a method of engineering, has nothing to do with its quality relative to the end it is trying to accomplish. I would say an idea's end is to approximate the truth. Perhaps you don't believe in such a thing, though.

Sanitation has a proven benefit, feminism does not, and has a bunch of very obvious drawbacks

Yes, but he was arguing against the notion that age has anything to do with the quality of the idea, which is what you suggested
>Otto Weininger tier theories were the norm for thousands of years until feminism completely took over about a century ago

He wasn't comparing feminism to sanitation, he was using sanitation as a clear illustration of the flaw in your argument. You made a fallacious point. It was not a false equivalence.

If an idea exists for a very long time in a culture it probably has a purpose. Sanitation is a new concept that is taken seriously because its benefits can be proven

You can't compare this to feminism

Perhaps, but it's purpose can still be outperformed, which is what the analogy to modern sanitation illustrates. It's not as if we went from zero sanitation to totally modern waste water treatment systems. Rome had the Cloaca Maxima, which was a large step up from pooping in the field, but not very good compared to my toilet.

So perhaps you could use the age of an idea as a sort of heuristic to tell you that it must be performing some kind of function, but you can't use it as an argument; you need to find out specifically what roles a concept is performing and argue against specific points advanced by the other position. Age by its lonesome is not a strong argument, it is an incredibly weak one.

I don't know who Otto Weininger is, but you could try arguing against these general points:

>The only omnipresent aspect of feminism are:
>the basic egalitarian principles that they should be treated as human beings
>they face some gender specific problems

>>the basic egalitarian principles that they should be treated as human beings
Which is what people disagree with, all traditional cultures treat men and women very differently, and believe that they are intrinsically fundamentally different.

Also in practice feminists don't try to achieve egalitarian situations, they just try to get power for women

I understand the source of the disagreement, but only stating an opposing view will just leave you at loggerheads. As you said to the other user, perhaps he is just stuck in the mindset of a feminst, and you are just stuck in your mindset. A clear presentation of an argument can get past this. For instance, what do you see as "basic egalitarian principles"? What is the nature of differences between men and women, and why do those differences necessitate some kind of cultural separation?

As to your second point, I don't know. Perhaps that's true in some situations. I think the user before was speaking from his personal, real life experience that the garden variety of feminism he encountered in school was generally a lot more mild than the living caricatures we see online.

Not the original user, but it boils down to the way mating strategies fundamentally shape human behavior, and how female ones are inimical to civilization as we know it.

What I'm saying really is the Feminist mindset and the 'alternatives' are so inherently antagonistic that there is no tolerance one of the other. Feminists don't tolerate actual hardcore sexist discourse, and the latter don't even tolerate women to speak out of turn. So..whatever englightenment ideal of discourse people are pretending exists in academia does not apply to this debate(or for that matter many other debates)

So I take that you are saying that the mating strategies females would choose if left to their own devices are changeable, or at least controllable through culture.

Does a culture need to provide a rigid role for females based on mating needs, or can enough self-select to have children on their own?

Do you think the issue of women not having children is so severe that we can't allow for exceptional individuals to make their own choices?

This is the main reason why I started arguing with you. I absolutely disagree that we have to collapse into relativism just because two positions, among many other possible ones, appear to be mutually exclusive. Just because some people can't handle discourse at a rational level, and just because sometimes people win over worse ideas by some kind of power politics, does not mean that there is no objective truth. And it doesn't mean that we aren't capable of resolving animosity and softening positions based on intellectually honest discussion.

Other user here. I will admit that my perspective isn't entirely without bias, since I identify as a feminist myself, but even so it's not like I'm not familiar with what the opposite arguments are and I completely understand the apprehension towards the more radical branches of feminism.

I feel as though many people understand feminism solely through the man-hating caricature you see being memed around all the time, and that makes people afraid to look into the actual theory. It was only after looking into the theory and actually speaking with card carrying feminists that I came to conclusion that most of them are fine. The point I was making was that the vilification of feminism and the extent to which it's on campus is blown way out of proportion. All they did on my campus to commemorate international women's day for example was just organising a few extracurricular events. Otherwise it was just another day at the office.

Of course more extreme ideologies aren't compatible. They wouldn't be extreme otherwise. The point is though that any good academic will have their own personal biases interfere with their work as little as possible. Some of their bias will obviously leak through unavoidably, but I've disagreed with tutors before and I've found that debate was always encouraged rather than shut down.

T. Discord Tranny upset xe is being exposed. TERFs are actually based and redpilled a key ally in the white mans fight against ZOG.

Should I take an Intro to African American Literature course? On one hand, it fulfills a few requirements and it would broaden my horizons a bit but on the other hand I don't want to deal with white guilt SJWs. The course description is "an introduction to the major themes and issues in African American literature, for the 18th century to the present". I go to a Catholic college, so it isn't too bad with SJWs/whatnot.

Attached: 1543438617804.png (772x817, 1.38M)

It's probably fine, I'd take it. Over that time range there are probably plenty of good literary works, I doubt you'll be inundated with 'we wuz kangz' type stuff.

>>open ongoing master's thesis file

Attached: elsevierpost.png (763x1200, 136K)

You have a good point. I just hope they don't push racebaity stuff like "The Hate U Give". There's some interesting stuff by people like Equiano and Du Bois.

Human tendencies can be nudged by cultures, but fighting too hard against them will result in problems with anger and disengagement. At nation-state scales, these problems are a genuine threat.

Cultures need to provide fairly firm roles for everyone, otherwise they become lost in ennui.

The problem is that cultures don't work at an individual level, they work on everyone or not at all (indeed, the size of the culture is determined by the shared definition of everyone). The loss of the contributions of a few exceptional individuals is unfortunate, but it needs to be evaluated against the large overall loss of stability.

I think the success and power of the United States is due to our emphasis on individualism and that the contributions of the exceptional far outweigh the value of the contributions of the greater number of average people, who also enjoy the benefits of greater prosperity that exceptional individuals bring. I don't see any serious threat to stability from allowing people to choose their own social roles, so long as there is a general agreement on certain values. A few casualties lost to ennui or to pointless wankery is worth it to reap the benefits of those who are strong enough to make a difference in the world.

I agree that uniform and totalizing cultures don't work on the individual level. But common values like the rule of law, republicanism, honestly, and hard work can tie us together just fine.

Investing in individuals could some day lead to such a surplus of production, knowledge, and educational know-how, that we could provide a good life for everyone, instead of accepting stagnation.