Post-Lacanian Feminism

[Gilly]

Is it thoroughly unsurprising to anyone else that feminists attempting to engage in a dialectical critique of Lacan's supposedly sexist theories fail utterly, both in theory and in practice of promoting their ideals, purely because the medium in which they engage his philosophy is inherently biased towards a male perspective? Trying to disprove and devalue a male-centric philosophy by means of dialectics is like trying to beat a spider at a web spinning contest. I may violate my contract of interest with every human male in our race by revealing this, but the simple truth is, women will have to reinvent the playing field socially, economically, and psychologically, if they are to stand a chance at gaining true "equality." And how is this done? By bitching at men about how unfair things are and making yourselves out to be some contemptable harpy? No. If you want to be in the game, shut your mouth and play.

[strrrng]

haha... lovely. I remember Nietzsche talking about something similar, basically saying that inequality was the most natural social hierarchy, and it was only through complaints about a lack of equality – which was assumed to be a basic tenet of a "good society" – that people could promote petty doctrines for their own malicious purposes.

As for feminism, I've come to find it as nothing more than a hypocritical, reactionary movement veiled under liberal goals and social concern. I'm happy to expound on this, but not at this moment. Anyway, the thing to consider is: there is no innate difference between strippers and feminists; one is just more honest than the other, and compelled to use a less palatable medium to drive their point home because of societal conditions. Also consider: you are not promoting anything new by reacting to a perceived injustice; at best, you're putting it back into place, or slightly refining it.

[Wynch]

Ugh, I don't even know where to start on this.

[Blaze]

Ugh, I don't even know where to start on this.

word.

[munenori2]

Is it thoroughly unsurprising to anyone else that feminists attempting to engage in a dialectical critique of Lacan's supposedly sexist theories fail utterly, both in theory and in practice of promoting their ideals, purely because the medium in which they engage his philosophy is inherently biased towards a male perspective? Trying to disprove and devalue a male-centric philosophy by means of dialectics is like trying to beat a spider at a web spinning contest. I may violate my contract of interest with every human male in our race by revealing this, but the simple truth is, women will have to reinvent the playing field socially, economically, and psychologically, if they are to stand a chance at gaining true "equality." And how is this done? By bitching at men about how unfair things are and making yourselves out to be some contemptable harpy? No. If you want to be in the game, shut your mouth and play.

Ok, so I don't know shit about Lacan. Really I don't. BA Philosophy fail.

But what about dialectics is masculine? The bolded seems off too. That kind of us vs them solidarity is weird to me.

[Kim]

Ok, so I don't know shit about Lacan. Really I don't. BA Philosophy fail.

No worries: Lacanian psychoanalysis is on its way out.

[Brentano]

Women should suck my cock and iron my shirts.

[Gilly]

Yeah, I know what you mean. Fuck equality. I want a man who serves me. A guy who works hard all day, earns more pay than me (and hands me his paycheck), comes home and cooks for me, cleans my clothes, brings me breakfast in bed, cowers when I address him, and politely addresses me ALWAYS with, 'Yes, Dear'.

You don't know how perfect you are.

[Gilly]

Ugh, I don't even know where to start on this.

And if you did, you would only confirm my hypothesis.

[Gilly]

But what about dialectics is masculine? The bolded seems off too. That kind of us vs them solidarity is weird to me.

Well I'm not saying that there SHOULD be an us vs. them "solidarity," but it is in the collective interests of men, in concrete terms, to remain in control, so by being so overtly open in telling women why they must change their strategy, I am undermining the interests of men as a collective, which exists whether or not we want it to.

[Gilly]

No worries: Lacanian psychoanalysis is on its way out.

Undeniable, but it will never be forgotten utterly, especially as long as women's rights philosophy give it's brand of attitudes credence by reacting to them so directly.

[Gilly]

Women should suck my cock and iron my shirts.

Hey, if that's the best they can do, and they get something they deem as worthy in exchange, why shouldn't she? Assuming you're stupid enough to marry a whore, why shouldn't she milk you for all you're worth?

[discojoe]

Is it thoroughly unsurprising to anyone else that feminists attempting to engage in a dialectical critique of Lacan's supposedly sexist theories fail utterly, both in theory and in practice of promoting their ideals, purely because the medium in which they engage his philosophy is inherently biased towards a male perspective? Trying to disprove and devalue a male-centric philosophy by means of dialectics is like trying to beat a spider at a web spinning contest. I may violate my contract of interest with every human male in our race by revealing this, but the simple truth is, women will have to reinvent the playing field socially, economically, and psychologically, if they are to stand a chance at gaining true "equality." And how is this done? By bitching at men about how unfair things are and making yourselves out to be some contemptable harpy? No. If you want to be in the game, shut your mouth and play.

What I don't get about feminists is why they can't seem to make up their minds about what they want.

Do they want stereotypical "woman things" to stop having negative connotations, or do they want it to be more socially acceptable for women to behave and dress like men?

If it's the former, then they want to continue to be "girlie" without being seen as weak/fair/delicate. If it's the latter, they admit that traditional femininity is not very enabling, and they want to be able to disassociate themselves from it.

I don't think both goals are compatible with one another.

[Brentano]

Yeah, I know what you mean. Fuck equality. I want a man who serves me. A guy who works hard all day, earns more pay than me (and hands me his paycheck), comes home and cooks for me, cleans my clothes, brings me breakfast in bed, cowers when I address him, and politely addresses me ALWAYS with, 'Yes, Dear'.

Men already work much harder than women. Women should at least pick up some of the slack by sucking my cocks.

[Not A Communist Shill]

haha... lovely. I remember Nietzsche talking about something similar, basically saying that inequality was the most natural social hierarchy, and it was only through complaints about a lack of equality – which was assumed to be a basic tenet of a "good society" – that people could promote petty doctrines for their own malicious purposes.

Isn't it obvious that 'inequality' is the most natural social hierarchy, especially considering that things in a hierarchy cannot be equal?

[Gilly]

Do they want stereotypical "woman things" to stop having negative connotations, or do they want it to be more socially acceptable for women to behave and dress like men?

If it's the former, then they want to continue to be "girlie" without being seen as weak/fair/delicate. If it's the latter, they admit that traditional femininity is not very enabling, and they want to be able to disassociate themselves from it.

I don't think both goals are compatible with one another.

And this is why a woman like Ayn Rand is admirable to me, from a feminist standpoint: she takes a clear stand as being committed to engaging in the typical "male" world; most "feminists" want to be treated like perfect dolls, to be preened and decorated but never tested; just taught to repress and strive for material success.

[strrrng]

Ugh, I don't even know where to start on this.

Anywhere you want.

Isn't it obvious that 'inequality' is the most natural social hierarchy, especially considering that things in a hierarchy cannot be equal?

Of course. Which is why attempts by women to abolish the natural hierarchy as a means to (arbitrarily) level out the playing field are foolish.

[Not A Communist Shill]

Of course. Which is why attempts by women to abolish the natural hierarchy as a means to (arbitrarily) level out the playing field are foolish.

You said that "I remember Nietzsche talking about something similar, basically saying that inequality was the most natural social hierarchy"

You didn't say that hierarchy itself was natural.

Anyhow, it's my view that just because something is natural doesn't mean that it should be desirable.

[strrrng]

You said that "I remember Nietzsche talking about something similar, basically saying that inequality was the most natural social hierarchy"

You didn't say that hierarchy itself was natural.

Yeah, I didn't make the implication specifically clear in the initial post, but it is in his writing:

The -order of castes-, the highest, the dominating law, is merely the ratification of an -order of nature-, of a natural law of the first rank, over which no arbitrary fiat, no "modern idea," can exert any influence.

Anyhow, it's my view that just because something is natural doesn't mean that it should be desirable.

It's not as simple as natural things being desirable. "Natural" in this sense refers more to consistent patterns of human interaction manifesting throughout evolution, which have become preferable by virtue of their effectiveness.

[Not A Communist Shill]

It's not as simple as natural things being desirable. "Natural" in this sense refers more to consistent patterns of human interaction manifesting throughout evolution, which have become preferable by virtue of their effectiveness.

All people who have ever had consciousness including Nietzsche have of course had their own position on what exactly is effective, and so presumably also held their own positions on what is "natural".

[strrrng]

All people who have ever had consciousness including Nietzsche have of course had their own position on what exactly is effective, and so presumably also held their own positions on what is "natural".

He didn't imply that the natural order existed because it was effective.

[Not A Communist Shill]

He didn't imply that the natural order existed because it was effective.

Well the natural order exists because it is inherited from a previous state of affairs which is in effective in the sense that it still exists - but I don't see why it is therefore necessarily foolish to consciously change the "natural order".

[strrrng]

Well the natural order exists because it is inherited from a previous state of affairs which is effective in the sense that it still exists - but I don't see why it is therefore necessarily foolish to consciously change the "natural order".

This was more or less his point lol. The "natural order" isn't an isolated thing; it is evidenced through the most effective evolutionary strategies that come into existence without being fueled by the human will (i.e. if women naturally occupy a specific position within a hierarchy, their attempts to undermine the entire hierarchy to reestablish said thing, is ideologically flawed).

[Not A Communist Shill]

This was more or less his point lol. The "natural order" isn't an isolated thing; it is evidenced through the most effective evolutionary strategies that come into existence without being fueled by the human will (i.e. if women naturally occupy a specific position within a hierarchy, their attempts to undermine the entire hierarchy to reestablish said thing, is ideologically flawed).

It seems to me you are supposing that humans are not able to be indepedent of evolutionary concerns.

[strrrng]

It seems to me you are supposing that humans are not able to be indepedent of evolutionary concerns.

And how would you justify supposing that we are independent of "evolutionary concerns"? -- (whose magnitude I don't think you are fully grasping, if you are implying a sense of triviality or limitation in their scope).

Or are you one of those religious people?

[Not A Communist Shill]

And how would you justify supposing that we are independent of "evolutionary concerns"? -- (whose magnitude I don't think you are fully grasping, if you are implying a sense of triviality or limitation in their scope).

Or are you one of those religious people?

I don't need to justify supposing that we are independent of evolutionary concerns - it's just that I thought Nietzsche believed this.

But I do believe that humans can act contrary to what is in their evolutionary interest...for example, by making a conscious choice not to breed. However, this is contentious because it could be argued that every decision we make is due to our genes and environmental pressures.

[strrrng]

I don't need to justify supposing that we are independent of evolutionary concerns - it's just that I thought Nietzsche believed this.

Why would someone who espoused the idea of a naturally embedded order believe that we are independent of evolutionary concerns?

But I do believe that humans can act contrary to what is in their evolutionary interest...for example, by making a conscious choice not to breed. However, this is contentious because it could be argued that every decision we make is due to our genes and environmental pressures.

Of course people can do that. Another aspect that should be considered, is whether people believe they are impinging their evolutionary success by taking certain actions (i.e. how certain individuals in poverty resort to criminal acts, in order to survive, ergo risk survival for survival).

[Not A Communist Shill]

Why would someone who espoused the idea of a naturally embedded order believe that we are independent of evolutionary concerns?

Just because someone thinks a way of being is naturally embedded does not mean that they believe that individuals who follow that way of being are unable to act independently of that natural order.

[strrrng]

Just because someone thinks a way of being is naturally embedded does not mean that they believe that individuals who follow that way of being are unable to act independently of that natural order.

Obviously not – otherwise, there would be no opposing evolutionary strategy to criticize.

Which is why Nietzsche went on to say:

…Wrong never lies in unequal rights; it lies in the assertion of "equal" rights…

[munenori2]

*punches Nietzsche in the dick, evolutionary style*

[Kim]

…Wrong never lies in unequal rights; it lies in the assertion of "equal" rights…

Yeah, goddammit, whoever let the broads vote and the negroes into my public bathroom!?

[strrrng]

Yeah, goddammit, whoever let the broads vote and the negroes into my public bathroom!?

Way to mistakenly assume what he was implying. The social castes that banished negroes from the voting booths and water fountains are not at all similar to the natural social hierarchy he depicted.

Ironically enough, it's that exact type of straw-man assumption that largely in part fuels things like feminists' complaints. It hinges on assuming there's some flawed social order that must be done away with, of course in the name of an *improved* order. Whatever.

[Kim]

Way to mistakenly assume what he was implying. The social castes that banished negroes from the voting booths and water fountains are not at all similar to the natural social hierarchy he depicted.

Ironically enough, it's that exact type of straw-man assumption that largely in part fuels things like feminists complaints. It hinges on assuming there's some flawed social order that must be done away with, of course in the name of an *improved* order. Whatever.

I don't care if me being paid less than men and many more disadvantages are the result of a natural order or not. I don't like it and I don't want it, so I will complain about it and be mildly amused by threads about EVIL EVIL STUPID feminists who are after your dicks.

[Not A Communist Shill]

Obviously not – otherwise, there would be no opposing evolutionary strategy to criticize.

Which is why Nietzsche went on to say:

…Wrong never lies in unequal rights; it lies in the assertion of "equal" rights…

That presupposes that the rights of an individual must be determined by the natural state of affairs. Someone could alternatively say that because they are able to state that "there should be equal rights", then that is the way things should be, as nature merely asserts itself and has no teeth.

[strrrng]

I don't care if me being paid less than men and many more disadvantages are the result of a natural order or not. I don't like it and I don't want it, so I will complain about it and be mildly amused by threads about EVIL EVIL STUPID feminists who are after your dicks.

Did I (or Nietzsche) imply that gender-specific pay was a result of a natural order? No, so don't imply as much.

[strrrng]

That presupposes that the rights of an individual must be determined by the natural state of affairs. Someone could alternatively say that because they are able to state that "there should be equal rights", then that is the way things should be, as nature merely asserts itself and has no teeth.

It's not about deterministic necessity; it's about the optimal state of working conditions that naturally arises, presumably through volitional actions derived from respective abilities. Arbitrarily saying "there should be equal rights" is a deliberate subversion (in Nietzsche's context), because it presupposes the right to supersede collective functionality with individual desires.

[Kim]

Did I (or Nietzsche) imply that gender-specific pay was a result of a natural order? No, so don't imply as much.

So why did you bring him up in the first place if there is no connection to the topic at hand?

haha... lovely. I remember Nietzsche talking about something similar, basically saying that inequality was the most natural social hierarchy, and it was only through complaints about a lack of equality – which was assumed to be a basic tenet of a "good society" – that people could promote petty doctrines for their own malicious purposes.

[Not A Communist Shill]

It's not about deterministic necessity; it's about the optimal state of working conditions that naturally arises, presumably through volitional actions derived from respective abilities. Arbitrarily saying "there should be equal rights" is a deliberate subversion (in Nietzsche's context), because it presupposes the right to supersede collective functionality with individual desires.

So Nietzsche himself is wrong, as even saying "there should be unequal rights" is arbitrary - he thinks that rights should be appropiate to each and every subset of individuals, and so the rights are neither equal or unequal.

[strrrng]

So why did you bring him up in the first place if there is no connection to the topic at hand?

Gender-specific pay has no direct relation to the topic, which is feminism, social order, etc. Nietzsche's comments are relevant insofar as they pertain to natural human tendencies and motivations, which are things that definitely underpin the -topic at hand-

[Kim]

Gender-specific pay has no direct relation to the topic, which is feminism, social order, etc. Nietzsche's comments are relevant insofar as they pertain to natural human tendencies and motivations, which are things that definitely underpin the -topic at hand-

The realities about which feminists complain have nothing to do with the topic? Do I sense a / divide here? :wink: