Feminist Theory & "Women's Issues" Discussion Thread: All Gender Identities Are Encouraged To Participate

do we need another thread for "academic/technical writing" because i have some ~opinions~ right now

That thing, about male allies challenging sexism in all male circles, and about calling out other men, when you see them engaging in sexism, that is so damn important.

Because the horrible thing is, when you are a woman, dealing with sexist men, part of their whole deal of being sexist is that they just do not listen or pay attention to women in the first place. But ironically, these sexist men will pay attention to and listen to - and model the behaviour of - other men. So when they see a man saying "uncool!" as annoying as it is that they didn't listen to the woman saying it in the first place - it does actually help stop the yuck from occurring.

^^^this is otm, and a weird involution into gender politics (or w/e) in general

(I also think academic and technical writing would make a great thread in itself - not just in relation to Butler, but broadening out to many other theorists who might be beyond the remit of this thread, but still could do with some criticism of their style.)

language obfuscates. period. what's generally called "post-structuralist" writing is ABOUT linguistic (or generally semiotic) obfuscation--using language against language. it's a rebellion against the falsely objective idea of "clear" language. try reading medieval theology sometime for a style of writing that addresses similar problems (ie, God's indescribability).

for me personally it's speaking up during bro time that's tricky. and I tend to consider my dudes to be pretty in tune. just sometimes someone says a thing (cf getting drinks last night with two other single guys)

― i love pinfold cricket (gbx), Thursday, February 16, 2012 1:50 AM (14 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

this is hard! i find it helpful, in trying to induce the courage to respond, to imagine that the off-color comment in question was made about "women" in general or a woman i'm dating if personalizing it makes me feel appropriately angry.

the other night on FB a guy wrote on another guy's wall that a reporter who covers us (occupy dc) had shown up in his okcupid quiver, and we all had a good laugh over it. then someone asked him to link to her okc profile and he said "nahh, putting her out there like that wouldn't be very allied of me," and the conversation ended.

it helps to have a community of guys that work to hold each other accountable, is what i was getting at with that last part.

fwiw this actually seems pretty straightforward but (capricious bolding to follow)

METHODS:
Sixty mature Leghorn* type chickens were chosen and divided into three groups. The 25 chickens in group A were given a weekly dose of 3 mg/kg/week methylprednisolone acetate(1) intramuscularly(2). Four chickens in group B died after the first drug injection and were excluded from the study(3). Therefore, the remaining 21 chickens in group B were additionally given 25 mg/kg/day pentoxifylline(4) intramuscularly(5), along with the steroid medication(6) as given in group A. The ten chickens in group C were not given any injections, as they were accepted as the control group(7). After the sacrifice(8) of the animals at week 14, both femoral heads(9) were taken from each animal. The animals which died along the course of the study also underwent pathological examination(10) but were not a part of the statistical analysis.
RESULTS:
In this study, steroid induced femoral head osteonecrosis(11) has been experimentally observed in chickens after high doses of corticosteroid therapy(12). The chickens were given pentoxifylline in order to prevent the effects of steroid on bones and bone marrow. The results showed that chickens are suitable osteonecrosis models(13), and that steroid causes adipogenesis(14) and necrosis(15) in the bone marrow and the death of the subchondral bone(16).

* lol
1) what the hell is this and why didn't you say what it is and not what it's named
2) this should seem obvious, "intra," "muscularly," but it's still not layperson
3) "excluded from the study" is a meaningful statistical concept, that MIGHT have implications, but this isn't clarified
4) ok waht is it
5) there's that word again
6) so the first one is a steroid medication?
7) is this like being popular
8) my god
9) this is a kind of fish, right
10) staring contest
11) wait is this what you're suggesting is happened? is everything that you described above...this?
12) didn't realize that was especially high
13) osteonecrosis is not for sale!!!!
14) chill wave
15) death metal
16) decemberists album

omg plax if you make me reread butler by posting super-awesomely i will never forgive you >:[

Lol I have never enjoyed footnotes this much, ty gbx (also: shudder)

I'm not sure what point you're trying to prove, gbx, but apart from the names of the actual chemicals in the treatments, i understood every word of that medical quote? I do have a background in medical data analysis, but most of the jargon is from Latin and Greek enough to work out what it means. It's not even rocket science.

i also find you intimidatingly smart, harbl

xp - you should totally do this as a powerpoint presentation!

lol, gbx, but i had no trouble reading and understanding the general gist of that chicken study. i think the density of crit/philosophical writing is more a product of what ryan described a few posts back:

"...what's generally called "post-structuralist" writing is ABOUT linguistic (or generally semiotic) obfuscation--using language against language. it's a rebellion against the falsely objective idea of "clear" language.

by which i mean it's complete nonsense. no offense, ryan. if you're trying to smash the language-state, it makes much more sense to describe the "the falsely objective idea of 'clear' language" (hey, that was very clear and direct!) than to publish arcane gibberish for yr academic peers.

dude stop posting for a minute maybe

omg gbx <3

man, this thread

― Little GTFO (contenderizer), Thursday, February 16, 2012 1:32 AM (55 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

^^ i feel like that post means something

― BIG HOOS aka the steendriver, Thursday, February 16, 2012 1:32 AM (54 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

different people have different difficulties and aptitudes. it's kinda funny(?) how on this thread about feminism and gender, we're seeing classic stereotypical male "i can understand the science stuff, therefore it is more understandable than the stuff about words"

i am flattered but idk where you got that idea xps
i started reading dialectic of sex again! so beautiful imo

I am not a man, and I found the science stuff more understandable than the stuff about stuff about words about words.

it makes much more sense to describe the "the falsely objective idea of 'clear' language" (hey, that was very clear and direct!) than to publish arcane gibberish for yr academic peers.

actually try to do this while being as true as possible to the phenomenon you are discussing and avoiding re-telling the history of philosophy on every page, and you'll be surprised how fast your language starts to look like, say, Derrida's. it seems to happen on its own! i personally strive for clarity with precision, and sometimes that results in some scary looking stuff.

xp - you are behaving like a stereotypical dude though!

i have never read that book. maybe i will get it tomorrow.

xxp

ha guys you ~fell into my trap~

of course you were able to make sense of that, you're people that have trafficked in that language professionally or just out of interest. and, as i said, it's actually a pretty straightforward account (which duh it's the abstract). but, if you weren't in the business of knowing what those words (or the roots of those words) meant, it might be a little obtuse. moreover, there's the question of why exactly it's even interesting, as a study or observation?

corticosteroids can induce osteonecrosis in chickens. when is this an issue? i can think of a bunch of cases, but i doubt it would be immediately, readily apparent to a person that found these words written on a scrap of paper on the floor.

the first chapter is here: http://www.marxists.org/subject/women/authors/firestone-shulamith/dialectic-sex.htm
xp

Posting once only here to mention that, as a reasonably smart guy who nonetheless doesn't try very hard and Peter Principled his way into a BA in only six years, the first book I ever read that taught me anything at all about feminism was not an academic or theoretical text at all, but Susan Faludi's "Backlash"; and frankly that book should be required reading in US high schools, because if anything things have gotten worse.

(also apologies for display name/thread topic collision)

academic language is often purposely obfuscated

yeah the biggest question of the chickens text is why would you do that to chickens??

lol i talk about women as "the sex class" all the time and have never read shulamith firestone :/

thanks, rrrobyn!

and i think that's why i didn't find it any easier to parse (maybe a bit more difficult) than the gender/language theory examples. Like, scientists gave drugs to some of the chickens and some of the chickens died. Other than that ... eyes kinda glazed because it didn't seem relevant.

but when you understand the text because you are immersed in its science world, you just probably inherently know why they would do that to chickens, is what i'm saying

exactly, rrobyn!

Whereas gender and language are things that we all deal with

you are behaving like a stereotypical dude though!

Fuck gender roles. I'm not behaving like a stereotypical dude, I'm behaving like a systems thinker with a strong background in both sciences and classical languages. This is the point, these things aren't attached to gender, but to personalities/bents/occupations.

And, as someone who has a huge interest in linguistics and languages, and in fact, studies dead or revived languages ~for fun~ seriously, it's not the "OMG words!" aspect of Butler that troubles me.

they are often attached to gender, as certain personality traits and bents and occupations are encouraged more if you're male vs. female!

but when you understand the text because you are immersed in its science world, you just probably inherently know why they would do that to chickens, is what i'm saying

― obliquity of the ecliptic (rrrobyn), Wednesday, February 15, 2012 8:36 PM (12 seconds ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

ACHIEVEMENT UNLOCKED: THIS THREAD

i mean basically

they are often attached to gender, as certain personality traits and bents and occupations are encouraged more if you're male vs. female!

*beats head against fucking wall*

Susan Faludi, yes!
xps

yeah i love Backlash a lot

so what is this thread supposed to be about, anyway? Science and math and related topics up until very recently (like the past 20 yrs or so) have been ridiculously male-dominant. And it goes back to stereotypes of female brain vs. male brain that that Harvard dolt bought into! Aren't we supposed to be discussing stuff like this?

Whereas gender and language are things that we all deal with
true, but we all don't engage with gender and language in the same ways
just like we all don't engage with chickens and corticosteroid therapy in the same ways

lol

some of us don't deal with chickens and corticosteroid therapy at all though!

Sarahel, it's 3 in the morning and I don't even know.

I've just spent the entire thread arguing, as a gender non conforming woman, that gender roles are contrived and how harmful it is that non-gendered interests are so actively gendered, and then you come in and tell me I'm ~being a dude~ for having an interest and a job in science.

like how many people don't even bat an eyelid at gender stereotypes? a lot of people.
and chickens are for eating and corticosteroids are something on a medication label or something "doctors know about"

i'm just saying that everyone engages with information on some level or another

all i'm saying is that your reactions to Butler and the theory and then the science stuff codes as "dudely" -- I don't mean it pejoratively, just that it is funny, because it shows the intersecting types of privilege interacting, and how it is complex.

for example, because you do have that aptitude/experience w/science, you have a certain privilege in terms of the science vs. non-science power dynamic.

I think it would improve my understand of the thread if everybody, ~ including me ~ would stop using these stupid ~ tildes ~ all the time because it is weird and ~ distracting ~

they're not tildes they're snakes!