"they mean nothing" is simply postmodernism distilled down through someone incapable of understanding postmodernism.
...not that there's anything worth learning in postmodernism -- it's just "they mean nothing" is the kind of inane shit you say when you don't understand the thesis.
Let's be real, most of the people who talk about 'masculinity' and 'femininity' are usually jerking off to their own pet social theories. Even this is a little guilty of it - and that's how you get something as ridiculous as ascribing 'kindness' to 'masculinity.
...But 'Innovation'? How many women ever innovated anything of consequence?* We're seriously talking about single-digit numbers of women per generation. They're more than half the university graduates and they STILL contribute almost nothing worthwhile. Their innovation is literally outpaced by mentally ill men in dresses. Even a broken man innovates more readily than the highest functioning woman!
Accomplishment? Most women's greatest accomplishment in life is producing a son who isn't a criminal, and they usually only succeed in that if a man helps them every single step of the way.
There is some stuff in post-modernism that is useful and true. Deleuzian territorialization for example. That is the idea that there are certain structures in society that will always exist and removing them will always result in the replacement by something else. For example, the deterritorialization of Christianity results in the reterritorialization of the religious space by sodomy and Science™. Lolberts play the role of deterritorializing institutions of orders so that progressives can reterritorialize with institutions of chaos.
Foucault also gets a lot right in his analysis. Madness and Civilization essentially says that insanity is a tool of social control, a means of suppressing disruptive elements. Sovereign is he who decides what is madness. The problem is that he wrote a road map for his pedophilic disciples to declare anyone who opposes raping children to be mad.
This is what irritates me about contemporary philosophy. "Territorialization"? Why must they always lay these neologisms on us?
This describes the hollowing out, the decadence or deliberate subversion of institutions.
As for Foucault, a broken clock is correct twice a day. Thomas Szasz's critique of the mental health establishment is more coherent, and practical in the political sense.
"they mean nothing" is simply postmodernism distilled down through someone incapable of understanding postmodernism.
...not that there's anything worth learning in postmodernism -- it's just "they mean nothing" is the kind of inane shit you say when you don't understand the thesis.
Let's be real, most of the people who talk about 'masculinity' and 'femininity' are usually jerking off to their own pet social theories. Even this is a little guilty of it - and that's how you get something as ridiculous as ascribing 'kindness' to 'masculinity.
...But 'Innovation'? How many women ever innovated anything of consequence?* We're seriously talking about single-digit numbers of women per generation. They're more than half the university graduates and they STILL contribute almost nothing worthwhile. Their innovation is literally outpaced by mentally ill men in dresses. Even a broken man innovates more readily than the highest functioning woman!
Accomplishment? Most women's greatest accomplishment in life is producing a son who isn't a criminal, and they usually only succeed in that if a man helps them every single step of the way.
At the end of the day, I don't disagree with you.
But let's fight the battles of today before we fight tomorrow's tomorrow's battles, okay?
Whoof! If words were stones, you'd have just bludgeoned an entire sex into mincemeat.
If someone is weak, you frequently cannot distinguish their kindness from their deference/cowardice.
There is some stuff in post-modernism that is useful and true. Deleuzian territorialization for example. That is the idea that there are certain structures in society that will always exist and removing them will always result in the replacement by something else. For example, the deterritorialization of Christianity results in the reterritorialization of the religious space by sodomy and Science™. Lolberts play the role of deterritorializing institutions of orders so that progressives can reterritorialize with institutions of chaos.
Foucault also gets a lot right in his analysis. Madness and Civilization essentially says that insanity is a tool of social control, a means of suppressing disruptive elements. Sovereign is he who decides what is madness. The problem is that he wrote a road map for his pedophilic disciples to declare anyone who opposes raping children to be mad.
This is what irritates me about contemporary philosophy. "Territorialization"? Why must they always lay these neologisms on us?
This describes the hollowing out, the decadence or deliberate subversion of institutions.
As for Foucault, a broken clock is correct twice a day. Thomas Szasz's critique of the mental health establishment is more coherent, and practical in the political sense.