Comments | skizzimit: A RANT ABOUT SEX OMG WTF RAAAAAGE!!!!

skizzimit

A RANT ABOUT SEX OMG WTF RAAAAAGE!!!!

Nov 25, 2008 20:45

Part of my job entails slogging through this poorly written intro sociology textbook a bunch of times, tasking away at the manuscript (TGI Word track changes function), the picture selection (TGI iStock.com), citations (TGI iPod), et cetera (TGIF). While this can get to be monotonous and monotonous and monotonous, it does allow me to think about ( Read more... )

Comments 8

xseitanistx November 26 2008, 04:17:43 UTC

I read it. I agree. This is partially why I am not inclined to take formal gender studies classes. It's definitely a topic I'm interested in, but they always attract very specific types of people (both as students and teachers) that largely want to circle jerk on the issue. That's fine for a class here or there... but come on, now, you're not REALLY expanding my horizons.

(Nice us of "sie.")

Also, what's with this undying commitment to moral relativism within sociology? Most folks outside of the discipline think it's a naive outlook, but I feel like every sociology major I've encountered thinks that way.

And it's true that economics are largely neutral on anything that is not overtly related to economics. (I started school as an econ major.) Economics will always uphold the right and left arms of capital, but as a field of study, it has no overt directional leanings.

This comment is really disjointed.

Nice seeing you the other day!

NOW YOU'VE DONE IT!!! skizzimit November 26 2008, 15:01:21 UTC

Oh, that old can of beans ( ... )

kefiv November 28 2008, 06:29:36 UTC

"Just because a lot of people believe something right now doesn't make it true."

The heart of the anti-relativist argument.

zeteein November 26 2008, 17:53:07 UTC

psh. a devout Kantian indeed! Have you no memory of when Kant broke my heart and I had to cry it out??

Well anyway, I can see your point to a certain extent, but ever since the Greensboro 4, the college professors in the Humanities have sided to the left. It's easy to forget, after being in the college setting, surrounding oneself with like-mindeds, that there are plenty of radically anti-feminism people out there, and that there is a good reason not to rock the boat just yet...though sure, sociology should be about a good argument and everyone goes home wiser, sexual liberation (and sexual orientation liberation) hasn't run its full course yet, so questioning it before everyone has their rights is threatening. Re: Prop 8.

After taking the Law of Sexuality and Gender, it's astonishing how very rightist the law continues to be on so many levels. The only way to change it is to pump out more and more radically leftists who are well educated to become the movers and the shakers, and that's just what college profs intend to do.

also, *

aloha! skizzimit November 28 2008, 03:51:54 UTC

Ha, I thought you'd long since abandoned the LJ. Yes, I do remember the day your towering admiration of Kant came crashing down. It was a relieving day indeed. Kidding kidding, I know that was a very traumatic event for you. ;-p

fiddlinfreak November 29 2008, 21:18:07 UTC

Yea I'm pretty sure that "radical feminism" doesn't exist in the way that most people think it does. Feminism itself is such a diverse movement and the irony is that as it has gotten more "radical" it has become less and less about women (what most people call 'radical feminism' is becoming more and more discredited by current feminist thought), shifting first to expanding notions of gender and now towards other mechanisms of oppression that have expressions against women, but really are rooted everywhere, in systemic and cultural racism, to the dehumanization of global capital to class issues. Regardless of the group in question, the mechanisms of privilege and hierarchy remain the same. This is the essence of sociology isn't it? To map out patterns of human interaction ( ... )

sociologists loooove to claim Marx as their own skizzimit November 30 2008, 05:57:16 UTC

Yeah, in the text I'm working on the author actually goes out of her way to mention liberal feminism and multiethnic feminism as distinct from the radical variety, so she gets props for that. However, acknowledging that ethnicity, class, etc. play a significant part in stratification and power corrals the feminist framework back into its father (lol) paradigm, conflict theory. I think the radical arm of feminism grew out in attempt to distance and define feminism from conflict theory, validating it as a novel way of thinking. So in a sense...what is feminism without the radical? Of course, some good theoretical development occurred under the banners of liberal/multiethnic feminism, but it could have just as well under conflict ( ... )

I learned of Marx, Durkheim, Evans Pritchard, and Weber in Religion class. It's the "liberal" arts fiddlinfreak November 30 2008, 07:29:44 UTC

I don't know what womens studies classes you were in. I couldn't even imagine an introduction to womens studies without bel hooks or Judith Butler, maybe if they just taught Mary Daly? Or maybe Earlham's department is on the cool end of the spectrum as far as sociology's concerned. It would certainly be messed up to only have one school of thought at a school. Did your professor mean that it doesn't sound right that women should be in the kitchen or that functionalism demands it? In any event I don't understand how that constitutes anything radically feminist, merely that he's narrow minded. Course you were the one taking the class ( ... )