I been noticing this Y chromsome "defective" rhetoric appearing more frequently. Do these TERFs not realize them and Matt Walsh have similar views?
I been noticing this Y chromsome "defective" rhetoric appearing more frequently. Do these TERFs not realize them and Matt Walsh have similar views?
How can you be a feminist, in favor of women's empowerment, and then serve a man by grooming girls (your students, who trust you!) for him to sexually abuse? It's not shitty behavior like she stiffed waitresses of their tips or didn't put the lid on the garbage can. Her actions directly contradict her philosophy. She doesn't live her own life how she tells others to live. What do we call those?
Okay I think we are talking about different things here. Prob my fault as I am not always as clear as I should be. So:
I only really figured out in the last decade that there's a small but vocal group of feminists who are biological essentiallists (?) And who hate men.
This group clearly doesn't have the institutional power or influence as, for example, white supremicists or christian fundamentalists.
Following your first bit about SdB.
I read 2nd sex and the ideas I quite like even if I don't agree completely.
Someone's actions taken solely on their own aren't enough to discredit their ideas.
And yeah from what you just posted after that. I honestly haven't read up on SdB as a person, just her work as a philosopher. To me, being a hypocrite doesn't make her ideas less valid on its own.
Her personal life aside, her idea that women as a 2nd sex become objects rather than subjects and how more or less any label can be applied to them is interesting.
That isn't a justification for what she did or didn't do.
I'm also not really sure, reading back, what the link is between what I was talking about in the 1st place and SdB.
Well, to the rest of us, it does. If you say one thing and do not just another, but precisely the opposite, then nobody has to listen to you. Practice what you preach. This is the same ground as the Christian pastors who preach tolerance and abstinence and it turns out they have five mistresses in five different states. Who cares about their message of love from Jesus? They're hypocrites!
Okay, so by valid I don't mean I'd personally take advice from her about the topic, I mean that I find her theories interesting and partially agree with them.
I mean, Kissenger's speech where he talks about every weapon being built representing labour, material and time that could be spent making roads, hospitals, schools etc. As an example.
That one idea in there is one I think a lot of people would agree with, even people who know Kissenger to be a hypocritical, evil man with the blood of millions on his hands. It doesn't mean we think that idea is nonsense, it means we think Kissinger is a hypocryte. I'm not about to wholeheartedly support building a tonne of tanks because Kissenger is a hypocrytical monster.
To be clear here I'm comparing the situation not the people.
I'd find it more curious how they justify it to themselves. More curious about Simone than Kissinger, as Kissinger has spent pretty much his entire life pursuing realpolitik and hasn't really indicated that he thinks roads, hospitals and schools are more strategically useful than tanks (or has he?).
Yeah for sure. It's the first i have heard of her grooming people so I would wonder how she squared what she wrote with how she lived.
But would you stand up in front of a group of people and say that you support Kissinger's ideas? And explain that those are divorced from Kissinger the person? Why or why not?
Kissinger aside, if I was talking about SdB's theories and so on... well firstly I'd really have to re read it cos its been ages.
Secondly I'd prob say something like what I said earlier. That SdB's ideas regarding object vs subject and the whole 'becoming something any label could be applied to' are interesting and I broadly agreed with it when I read it and still do.
I wouldn't talk about her life because beyond her being with Sartre I really don't know enough about it and I only know that second hand. I didn't read her biography or anything.
Are her ideas divorced from her as a person? Probably not, no.
Am I going to take her being a hypocryte alone as a reason to dismiss those ideas? Again, no.
I'm really not saying I am anything like an expert here, just that a) I broadly agree with some of her writing and b) someone being a hypocryte isn't enough on its own for me to dismiss their ideas.