I've always considered a Gender studies degree to be useless. It only seeks to infiltrate science, mathematics, and engineering with the nebulous thought form of language arts. A person with a gender studies degree can't run a business, can't start a business, can't write a meaningful article or book, and only seem to be useful in Human resources to destroy a successful company.
Can you answer a question for me? Why do women support trans-identifying men who think they are women? Why do they participate in their own downfall?
Not all women do, of course, and this has precipitated a massive split within the women's movement itself. Those who do support transgender identity have usually accepted the argument made by feminists like Judith Butler that destroying the category 'woman' (or at least deeply unsettling it to the point of incoherence) is actually key to women's alleged liberation. These women do not accept that women have any privileges as women; they see only oppression in what they term an 'identity category,' which they define as part of a 'regulatory regime.'
Other women (gender critical/TERF/women's right advocates) accept that women do have some privielges and protections in our society, but do not always allow that recognition to soften their feminism, seeing the transgender phenomenon as a male plot to erase and colonize womanhood.
Not all women who oppose transgenderism are feminists, of course.
It's sophistry in front of self-centered foregone conclusions. It damages relationships broadly and specifically. It downplays and destroys women's best attributes.
I hope that if something good comes from mutilating kids, it's the destruction of this gender ideology from both a legal and political perspective. Competent women shouldn't have to account for it. Decent men should no longer be harassed for it. Innocent kids shouldn't be mutilated for it.
It's a cult, and will be exposed in courts of law. It's going to take a lot of academia and bureaucracies with it.
Very interesting. I've seen a combination of these at work:
Definitely #1. Feminists were hired in the 1970s because the liberal humanists who dominated disciplines like English and Art History were open-minded, said things like "Well, it's not my cup of tea at all, but it's an interesting perspective and shouldn't be shut out of academia." In time, of course, feminists insisted that anyone who was NOT a feminist should be shut out of academia.
#2 is absolutely the case. In the literature departments I worked in, I found that many literary specialists, especially in the younger cohorts, were not very interested in literature. But they were definitely interested in using literature to promote their pet social theories, which made them seem far more dedicated, more serious, and more socially conscious (not to mention hipper) than their dull colleagues who worked on Milton's color symbolism for 10 years (I did know a marvelous scholar who pursued this angle).
#3 in spades. There are a lot of power-hungry weirdos, smart in school but hopeless in life, hungry for a theory that allows them to persecute others in the name of social justice.
I would add to you list of things gender studies grads can't do is that they don't make very good employees. I recently listened to a podcast that was discussing how inclusivity hires make life hell for fellow workers in writers' rooms for TV shows & movies.
"Why do women support trans-identifying men who think they are women?"
Feelings. Any affluent liberal woman knows she can do "anything a man can do", despite the fact that we're not all the same person, and some men are almost superhuman in their physical or cognitive gifts. No matter. It's all just society's fault. AWFLs could totes be building the next SpaceX rocket if it weren't for "math is hard" Barbie.
Taken to it's (logical?) conclusion, men in drag are women. It's like science, but better. It's affirmation.
I propose that for a significant number of woman, a trans identifying man fulfills the same role as a gay best friend serves them. I anticipate a primetime series that parrots the plot of Will & Grace but with a straight lawyer roommate who moonlights as a sassy dragqueen struggling with gender dysphoria. Will the kiss of a hardworking interior designer with her own 'body issues' save this off-key crooner in sequins and a boa? Thursdays at 9:00 central
I saw a Netflix show last year (can't remember the name) in which the main character, a woman, was still close friends as well as had a working relationship with a trans woman who had previously been her husband. The transgender woman ultimately died heroically.
Killing off the male lead love inerest, but in a respectfully dramatic manner, so that the female protagonist is free to pursue other relationships tabula rasa is a key narrative feature that insures success with female audiences. #expendability
I've always considered a Gender studies degree to be useless. It only seeks to infiltrate science, mathematics, and engineering with the nebulous thought form of language arts. A person with a gender studies degree can't run a business, can't start a business, can't write a meaningful article or book, and only seem to be useful in Human resources to destroy a successful company.
Can you answer a question for me? Why do women support trans-identifying men who think they are women? Why do they participate in their own downfall?
Not all women do, of course, and this has precipitated a massive split within the women's movement itself. Those who do support transgender identity have usually accepted the argument made by feminists like Judith Butler that destroying the category 'woman' (or at least deeply unsettling it to the point of incoherence) is actually key to women's alleged liberation. These women do not accept that women have any privileges as women; they see only oppression in what they term an 'identity category,' which they define as part of a 'regulatory regime.'
Other women (gender critical/TERF/women's right advocates) accept that women do have some privielges and protections in our society, but do not always allow that recognition to soften their feminism, seeing the transgender phenomenon as a male plot to erase and colonize womanhood.
Not all women who oppose transgenderism are feminists, of course.
It's sophistry in front of self-centered foregone conclusions. It damages relationships broadly and specifically. It downplays and destroys women's best attributes.
I hope that if something good comes from mutilating kids, it's the destruction of this gender ideology from both a legal and political perspective. Competent women shouldn't have to account for it. Decent men should no longer be harassed for it. Innocent kids shouldn't be mutilated for it.
It's a cult, and will be exposed in courts of law. It's going to take a lot of academia and bureaucracies with it.
I certainly hope so.
Very interesting. I've seen a combination of these at work:
Definitely #1. Feminists were hired in the 1970s because the liberal humanists who dominated disciplines like English and Art History were open-minded, said things like "Well, it's not my cup of tea at all, but it's an interesting perspective and shouldn't be shut out of academia." In time, of course, feminists insisted that anyone who was NOT a feminist should be shut out of academia.
#2 is absolutely the case. In the literature departments I worked in, I found that many literary specialists, especially in the younger cohorts, were not very interested in literature. But they were definitely interested in using literature to promote their pet social theories, which made them seem far more dedicated, more serious, and more socially conscious (not to mention hipper) than their dull colleagues who worked on Milton's color symbolism for 10 years (I did know a marvelous scholar who pursued this angle).
#3 in spades. There are a lot of power-hungry weirdos, smart in school but hopeless in life, hungry for a theory that allows them to persecute others in the name of social justice.
I would add to you list of things gender studies grads can't do is that they don't make very good employees. I recently listened to a podcast that was discussing how inclusivity hires make life hell for fellow workers in writers' rooms for TV shows & movies.
"Why do women support trans-identifying men who think they are women?"
Feelings. Any affluent liberal woman knows she can do "anything a man can do", despite the fact that we're not all the same person, and some men are almost superhuman in their physical or cognitive gifts. No matter. It's all just society's fault. AWFLs could totes be building the next SpaceX rocket if it weren't for "math is hard" Barbie.
Taken to it's (logical?) conclusion, men in drag are women. It's like science, but better. It's affirmation.
I propose that for a significant number of woman, a trans identifying man fulfills the same role as a gay best friend serves them. I anticipate a primetime series that parrots the plot of Will & Grace but with a straight lawyer roommate who moonlights as a sassy dragqueen struggling with gender dysphoria. Will the kiss of a hardworking interior designer with her own 'body issues' save this off-key crooner in sequins and a boa? Thursdays at 9:00 central
I saw a Netflix show last year (can't remember the name) in which the main character, a woman, was still close friends as well as had a working relationship with a trans woman who had previously been her husband. The transgender woman ultimately died heroically.
Killing off the male lead love inerest, but in a respectfully dramatic manner, so that the female protagonist is free to pursue other relationships tabula rasa is a key narrative feature that insures success with female audiences. #expendability
This, I would watch. It already sounds better than everything on TV this season.