Recommend me Philosophy

camus' the myth of sisyphus is a favorite of mine. nice and short too

  atropa said:

  analogue wings said:

Feminism is a little, um, quaint in the 21st century, no?

No. It's one of a few sane responses in a sick society. Despite it being your responsibility to understand the condition and affect of sexual violence in your life and the world it's a part of, the environments we live in often isn't one in which values such as accountability, honesty, or responsibility are much acknowledged in regards to male privilege. And there are social stigmas that in one way or another have the effect of silencing communication about abuse and perpetration. This is no rationale. I encourage you to do your own research. The CDC, RAINN, the dep. of justice's national institute of justice, and the FBI are few places to start. These websites will provide links to primary sources.

 

Statistics vary of course, but here are a few reported through RAINN:

 

1 out of every 6 American women have been the victims of an attempted or completed rape in their lifetime (14.8% completed rape; 2.8% attempted rape).

 

9 of every 10 rape victims were female in 2003.

 

About 3% of American men — or 1 in 33 — have experienced an attempted or completed rape in their lifetime.

 

Males are the least likely to report a sexual assault, though they make up about 10% of all victims.

 

 

And it's much more difficult for statistics to speak for instances of sexual violence that go unreported (RAINN reports upwards of sixty percent of rape/sexual assault incidences go unreported according to data released in 2005, Bureau of Justice reported 38.5 percent of rape/sexual assault incidences went unreported in 2003) .

 

Sexual violence is one of the most visible expressions of patriarchy. You could say it's the 'front line' of sorts. Most expressions of dehumanizing sexism and misogyny are much more subtle and much more acceptable and much less likely to be spoken out against. This means unwanted jokes and sexual advances, devaluing and sometimes violent objectification, disempowering language, thinking silence actually means 'yes', invasion of space or an unwanted presence (creepy staring, intimidating behavior), verbal abuse of all sorts including interrupting and talking over one, the forceful prescription of roles ('look, I work all day and refuse to come home and have to wash the dishes..', 'I refuse to change diapers', 'I refuse to wear condoms so if we're going to have intercourse, you have to take the pill' etc..) and this list could go on and on through all aspects of society - advertising, the workplace, universities (I've read one in four to one in five college attending women have reported experiences that met the legal criteria for rape).

 

And these aren't rules for oppression. Some female bodied folk may also think jokes about domestic roles are funny or they may appreciate transgressive media which features violence against female bodies or they may even use what others perceive as disempowering language. But this doesn't negate a vast many of people's experiences.

 

So no, I don't believe feminism is a little quaint in the twenty first century and it isn't only relevant in Afghanistan - where honestly, I think western formulated feminisms have the potential to be less relevant or at least less accessible. I encourage you speak up about sexual violence and transgression with your friends and family, classmates and others in your surroundings - male bodies and female bodies. Feminism isn't just about women or female bodied people.

 

Really only the tip of the iceberg.

happy valentine's day, female bodied person!

sexist

happy valentine's day, embodied persons!

my philosophy is to fuck anything until it's extinct

  analogue wings said:

sexist

your language is dismissive in the first place. do you consider sexism, misogyny or sexual violence to be a little quaint for the twenty first century? For me, feminism is a search for sanity and a method of resistance.

I don't think I am in any way predicated to sign up for any particular philosophy or "ism" in order to hold the utterly mainstream belief that "rape is bad".

  analogue wings said:

Anyway, I can't believe no one's mentioned Atlas Shrugged. Or are you gonna be a typical lefty sheep and just say that Rand is Satan without actually reading any?

the reason for that is that, in my experience at least, Ayn Rand isn't really taken seriously by political philosophers on the right or left. if you're into that sort of thing, you're better off reading Robert Nozick's 'Anarchy, State and Utopia,' though that might be a little outdated by now.

i agree with both encey and panoptimist about the advantages of approaching things in an academic setting. academia certainly has its disadvantages -- there is no getting around that -- but it also has some serious advantages and it would be foolish to ignore them.

  grue said:

the reason for that is that, in my experience at least, Ayn Rand isn't really taken seriously by political philosophers on the right or left. if you're into that sort of thing, you're better off reading Robert Nozick's 'Anarchy, State and Utopia,' though that might be a little outdated by now.

Yeah, but I think the OP just wants to read the classics.

  analogue wings said:

I don't think I am in any way predicated to sign up for any particular philosophy or "ism" in order to hold the utterly mainstream belief that "rape is bad".

Certainly not. The distinction I make being for me. You ask whether feminism is quaint for the twenty first century (facetious or not, no matter). And my response was attempting to give reasons for some us to continue to regard feminism as a method for explaining aspects of this world by grounding -isms to real world issues that affects many of us in the now. I don't think you need to identify as a feminist to support similar methods. Nor do I think you need to be a feminist to combat sexism and misogyny or work to prevent sexual violence. It works for some of us but is still relevant for all of us.

  atropa said:

  analogue wings said:

I don't think I am in any way predicated to sign up for any particular philosophy or "ism" in order to hold the utterly mainstream belief that "rape is bad".

Certainly not. The distinction I make being for me. You ask whether feminism is quaint for the twenty first century (facetious or not, no matter). And my response was attempting to give reasons for some us to continue to regard feminism as a method for explaining aspects of this world by grounding -isms to real world issues that affects many of us in the now. I don't think you need to identify as a feminist to support similar methods. Nor do I think you need to be a feminist to combat sexism and misogyny or work to prevent sexual violence. It works for some of us but is still relevant for all of us.

Hence my assertion that feminism is "quaint" - academic movements agitate for institutional change. Once said change has been achieved, the next step is societal change, which academics are next to useless at effecting. The baton must be passed to grass roots movements and individuals, rendering the academic arm of the movement, well, academic.

Since we were talking about philsophy, I assumed "feminism" to mean the academic movement. You are clearly applying the word to grass roots endeavours as well, which is fine.

In the words of eminent Canadian philosopher Essines, "feminism dies when my dick gets hard."

boring

well, i dunno ... the two best books of philosophy, or at least my favorites, are:

franz rosenzweig, star of redemption

pavel florensky, the pillar and ground of the truth

also, in case anyone has forgotten, there's no point to ever having an argument on the internet (ever)

  analogue wings said:

  atropa said:

  analogue wings said:

I don't think I am in any way predicated to sign up for any particular philosophy or "ism" in order to hold the utterly mainstream belief that "rape is bad".

Certainly not. The distinction I make being for me. You ask whether feminism is quaint for the twenty first century (facetious or not, no matter). And my response was attempting to give reasons for some us to continue to regard feminism as a method for explaining aspects of this world by grounding -isms to real world issues that affects many of us in the now. I don't think you need to identify as a feminist to support similar methods. Nor do I think you need to be a feminist to combat sexism and misogyny or work to prevent sexual violence. It works for some of us but is still relevant for all of us.

 

Hence my assertion that feminism is "quaint" - academic movements agitate for institutional change. Once said change has been achieved, the next step is societal change, which academics are next to useless at effecting. The baton must be passed to grass roots movements and individuals, rendering the academic arm of the movement, well, academic.

 

Since we were talking about philsophy, I assumed "feminism" to mean the academic movement. You are clearly applying the word to grass roots endeavours as well, which is fine.

 

You're missing the entire point of feminist criticism, especially deconstructionist criticism.

For how else are these views and ideas to be integrated into society? The average individual can not and will not do what it takes to look at life in light of feminist criticism, gender role discussions, race discussions, etc. There is always a sense in which it will not be "practical" the way tying your shoes is practical.

But for you to associate feminism and other movements of that nature purely with academia, you're defeating the purpose of their writing and in fact perpetuating the stereotypes they write against.

  playbynumbers said:

well, i dunno ... the two best books of philosophy, or at least my favorites, are:

 

franz rosenzweig, star of redemption

pavel florensky, the pillar and ground of the truth

 

 

 

also, in case anyone has forgotten, there's no point to ever having an argument on the internet (ever)

Then there must not be any point to arguing off of the internet either. Fuck, why question our establishment of anything?