|—||Gilles Deleuze (Three Group-Related Problems)|
Николай Рерих - Крик змея. Н.д., 1913–1914
Nicholas Roerich - Scream Snake
Why does every tumblr radical feminist blog have a bio like “I’m Becky, 22, I love makeup and cats and I’m anti-porn, anti-misogyny and gender critical. I love misandry and my boyfriend Tyler”
aside from the anti porn and gender critical this is literally indistinguishable from a libfem bio and that’s because terfs and libfems have the same shallow intellectually-bankrupt beliefs and praxis
that was a bad answer but i didn’t want to ramble. basically as i understand it the idea of gender abolition posits one thing but in practice looks like something totally different. the apparent goal is to destroy the gender and sex binaries, allowing for freedom for people to transcend those binaries and categories. this involves of course rejecting sex/gender roles and stereotypes and expectations as are prescribed under a patriarchal society. it therefore involves a constant conscious engagement with and critique of how gender norms operate in society and who they oppress. that’s all good stuff, i’m for it. but that’s never what i see actually going on by those who call themselves gender abolitionists. from them i just see hatred, abuse, aggression, and denial of people’s (but let’s not be obscure here, it’s mostly trans women’s and also non-binary people’s) lived experiences as the genders (or lack of gender) they are, so like, they’re full of shit. i don’t have a place as a “gender abolitionist” when that’s what it looks like in practice, which is clearly light years away from the theory that i’m more aligned with.
i am for myself, not for anyone else or in any broad sense
Remembrance of Things Past: Vol II | Marcel Proust (via phoebephilosophy)
If you read this as advocating some debased form of ‘Free Love’ or ‘Polyamory’ (surely the most incidious mutation of Patriarchy we have seen thus far) then you are missing the point. If you read it as some evocation of the Lacanian theory of desire (desire is always desire for more desire) then you’re getting closer. It is the desire for an impossible Love, a plenitude against the dynamics of scarcity, of overflowing against the strictures of Individualism (and all its putrid technologies), of a bleeding into one another and a being-in-common, of a Love that resists the commodity and its imperatives on ownership, that violently asserts itself as a Rupture with every single mode of Being and subjectivity insisted upon by Capital, which will shudder and burn. That is, as an insanity which calls every single imperative into question and, finding them hopelessly inadequate, proceeds to put them to the torch. Flame on, flame on.
talking to cis people about gender is like talking about economics to 9 year olds
zombiegraycat replied to your post:i legitimately don’t know how to put together this…i’m an anthro major who thinks sociology is p useless too
i had a drinking game idea for my sociology class, take a shot every time the professor says the word “problematic”. you’ll be in the hospital with alcohol poisoning halfway through the lecture!
reading sociology all i can usually think is “i don’t care” because the issues it deals with are so pointless (the wage gap for example) but when i read philosophy it resonates with me.
i find it’s way more descriptive as opposed to critical, evaluative, or interpretive. like no shit the wage gap exists. now you can go on to list a hundred random stats about it and ask pointless questions about “how it affects people” as though that’s not obvious, or you can actually use a critical framework to outline the structural and social conditions in which it arose and then conceptualize what will be necessary in order to fix not just the wage gap itself but everything that was wrong that allowed it to exist in the first place. and hint: the ultimate solution is not a “bandaid-like” legal reform.
sociology isn’t radical.