ITT: contemporary femininity

what book is tjis

>Subject X to women
>Immediatly correlate it to the sensual
I guess the true cumbrains were the women we met along the way

youtube.com/watch?v=CdIT74L8hGI

Attached: BAS_203.png (597x577, 161K)

Wait, so is feminism woke to the fact that they don’t have it better than men and purely chauvinistically seeking to raise women above men not though domination/submission means but through literally transcending humanity and sexuality without men?

What the fuck lol, are women actually smart? Is this a preemptive response to transhumanism and postgenderism selecting males as the only necessary gender thanks to their utilitarian superiority most importantly due to their less intensive role in sexual reproduction

to bump up a short pamphlet to book form, because only the most radical agents buy overpriced semiotext(e) books

preliminary materials for a theory of the young-girl

Attached: IMG_20190906_111606-01.jpg (600x800, 350K)

Attached: IMG_20190906_111619-01.jpg (600x800, 298K)

Attached: IMG_20190906_111650-01.jpg (600x800, 316K)

interesting read with some helpful definitions and background:
>lareviewofbooks.org/article/drone-warfare-tiqqun-the-young-girl-and-the-imperialism-of-the-trivial/
Foucauldian Biopower:
>the State’s interest in exercising power over life and human productivity through increased regulation of populations by governments and their demographic apparatuses of surveillance, analysis, and “management.”
Debordian Spectacle:
>“social relation among people, mediated by images.”

>Preliminary Materials For a Theory of the Young-Girl was first published in 1999 as part of Tiqqun 1, and is the most accessible of the collective’s texts to be released by Semiotext(e) thus far. The translation follows the French text that was revised and republished as a single volume in 2001, the year of the second and final issue of the journal (crucially intervening between the original and the revision is Hardt and Negri’s Empire).
...
>The “theory” of the Young-Girl is of course a critique. A literal reading of Preliminary Materials would render the text one long screed against the vapid language, anxious vacuity, and feigned happiness of adolescent girls and youthful women in the West. But the text is not meant to be read literally as straightforward misogyny. Instead, as it is used throughout Tiqqun’s text and throughout this essay, “Young-Girl” is a figurative term. “She” is both an exponent of and metaphor for the commodification of social life under late capitalism into consumerist “types.” The Young-Girl can also be — and often is — a “man in power”: the two figures “in every way resemble each other when they don’t simply coincide.” The term is meant to refer to the formatted personalities that Empire would prefer us to select and embody, slotting ourselves neatly into prefab lives that pose no threat to the ruling world order of Imperial capitalism.

Anyone whose gotten a "feel" for climbing a social media ladder will appreciate this, from the LARB:
>“Young-Girl” instead refers to the idealization of youth and femininity by the apparatuses of consumer capitalism that is encoded into the way these “types” relate to each other: “Hypostasized Youth and Femininity, abstracted and recoded into Youthitude and Feminitude, find themselves raised to the rank of ideal regulators of the integration of the Imperial citizenry,” the drone-like consumerist subjects of Empire.
You were born just in time for the golden age of make-up tutorials.
>The thrust of Tiqqun’s Preliminary Materials, the argument behind their invective against mass conformity, is that Young-Girlification is not a social problem isolated in the sphere of “culture,” but a grave political problem that we cannot afford to ignore. The Young-Girl is not passive, Tiqqun insists, but a “lethal commando” in the war against heterogeneity: she is personality on auto-tune, a homogenized nobody whose life aspirations are supplied to her by mediatized images. Her twin pursuits of happiness and beauty are fueled by desires that “are not even her own,” but rather those of her “market-driven superego.” These pursuits are destined to remain in a constant state of failure — and thus ensure the Young-Girl will always feel a miserable lack, having failed to experience her own personhood in a way that would generate unique desires and emotions — because the images of “happiness” and “beauty” that she chases are nothing more than “socially controlled desire.”
>At once self-absorbed and completely lacking selfhood, the Young-Girl (the Fratboy, the Hipster) is the perfect collaborator for what Tiqqun call the “anthropotechnical project of Empire,” a mass formatting of the population into subjects kept so busy with the fulfillment of manufactured desires that they never stop to question consumer capitalism and the violent war-making, environment-trashing global regime that underwrites it. Young-Girls not only offer little resistance to the Imperial project, they are also so predictable that they require little surveillance. Enthralled by the Spectacle (whose concrete practices Tiqqun calls “Publicity”), Young-Girls render the State’s more interventionist management strategies of Biopower (Tiqqun’s “Police”) unnecessary: her willingness to mold herself into one of the representations that Spectacle teaches her to worship makes external discipline unnecessary. Young-Girls are Empire’s desired subjects because they police themselves with their phony desires. The State need not waste its time or data-gathering resources on the Young-Girl, who is the living representation of Empire’s success with generating self-managed “social pacification.” She takes good care of herself.

>Young-Girl (the Fratboy, the Hipster)
In my opinion, there is no category that compares to the feminine, however ambiguous and weird it's been made recently. I think to some extent, these status-quo empowered/embodying women may come to disagree with prescribed directions and surprise people. Black Twitter comes to mind in delivering a great deal of surprise to people who thought they understood them to be another set of drones.

ever since the garden woman's sin has been to try to control and dominate men

Eve sinned in tempting adam with the apple, Adam sinned in accepting that temptation. The root cause was satan, but our first parents were complicit

For women, sex is as easy as masturbating is for men. However, with the distinction that up until recently, they had risks of single parenthood and pregnancy for modern behavior.

The way these things are written, one feels that these archetypes apply mostly to first-world middle class type people, which are the last possible place where "resistance to capitalism" could flourish (outside of the bourgeoisie, of course). Are the victims of the war-machine (including those in the "imperial centers") young girls? How would they get out of being one if so? How does the formation of "authentic selfhood" take on the form of a critique of capitalism? These "theories" never have anything to say about this.

I keep reminding myself the authors composed all this with their idea of influential electronics being television, film and magazines, all of which seem silly compared to Instagram, Facebook and more niche platforms like streaming and strictly adult sites. While they're interested in the social and economic elements constructing the modern female, the successful social media companies have found neuroscientific ways of stimulating us. The algorithms must grasp that girls are hot, and that there's a limitless thirst by which to trap users. I do wonder what comes of the women who ride the waves of that algorithmic greatness? Do they make it to the next civilization after ours or do they go down with us too?