(no subject)
May. 5th, 2010 10:28 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
winneganfakeOk, this sums up my reaction fairly well, given that I finished the book half an hour ago, and I'm still having trouble parsing complete sentences:
The difference would be the fact that I'm currently still muttering a lot less complimentary language about said author.
The difference would be the fact that I'm currently still muttering a lot less complimentary language about said author.
Re: hoo boy, this opens up a can of worms....
Date: 2010-05-06 12:40 am (UTC)I do realize that. Which is why I used it as the example.
"I did not think it was necessary to specify that I meant literature when we were discussing literature."
I find it is always necessary to be clear and accurate when making an declarative statement or portion of an argument. Saves a lot of "But that's not what I meant" backpedaling later.
"I think that some of these interpretations are more valid than others; however, we don't really have a basis for saying any of them are *wrong* other than the quality of our arguments for the ones we believe to be more valid."
Or, you know, perhaps, the author's statement of what is a correct interpretation and what isn't. But heavens, why would we listen to the author when a conclusion based critic is more than willing to tell us what the author REALLY meant.
"I mentioned it the first time in misguided shorthand."
Oh good, at least we are now on the same page with who brought gender into the discussion in the first place. Now let us proceed to why you brought it up at all? And how is "you're a guy geek" shorthand for "male privilege"? And if it is shorthand for it, then what you actually meant to write was, what....."I'll take that under advisement, but here's a thing. You are afflicted with male privilege."?
That hardly seems less offensive a statement.
~Aramada
Re: hoo boy, this opens up a can of worms....
Date: 2010-05-06 12:54 am (UTC)My edit does not say "you are afflicted with male privilege." Men do, however, have male privilege. It exists. It's not something they do, it's something they have. It's is not synonymous with sexism. I don't consider that a character flaw, so I'm not sure how it's offensive. I wanted to ask how that affected Dmitri's reading of the novels.
Re: hoo boy, this opens up a can of worms....
Date: 2010-05-06 01:07 am (UTC)::blinks:: I'm pretty sure authors know what they put into their work. They wrote it. If there is anyone on the planet who knows what they put into their work, it would be the authors. Now, it is possible that an author doesn't convey something they way they wanted to, chooses words badly, fails at painting a scene properly. But we weren't talking about "knowing what they put into their work." We were talking about valid vs. invalid interpretations of works. And the author is absolutely 100% qualified to say, "THIS is a correct interpretation of my work. THAT is an invalid, nay, wrong interpretation of my work."
YOUR statement was "we don't really have a basis for saying any of them are *wrong*." Yes, yes we do. When the author is alive, ask the author. If the author says the interpretation is wrong, guess what? It's wrong.
"My edit does not say "you are afflicted with male privilege."
....
...
YES. IT. DOES.
Let me quote it for you: "You are a man, so you have this male privilege."
Not only that, but in this very post, you start with "My edit does not say "you are afflicted with male privilege." and then you brain numbingly follow it with "Men do, however, have male privilege."
Sooooo, your statement is "My edit didn't say he has male privilege (even though that's exactly what it said), and additionally, men have male privilege."???
"Men do, however, have male privilege. It exists. It's not something they do, it's something they have. It's is not synonymous with sexism."
And you don't think it is sexist to claim, unilaterally, that men, as a whole, have "male privilege"? And, it's "something they have"? Like brown hair or a penis? The dictionary would disagree with you. The definition of the word sexism disagrees with you. You are stereotyping based on sex. You are asserting an attitude that fosters a stereotype of social roles based on sex.
The fact that you don't see how claiming, without caveat or restriction that "Men have male privilege" is offensive is mind boggling. It is becoming apparent that apparently, in your world, sexism only exists against females.
It's unfortunate for you that isn't what the word actually means.
~Aramada
edited to correct a bold tag
Re: hoo boy, this opens up a can of worms....
Date: 2010-05-06 01:17 am (UTC)No, writers don't always know what they're putting into their work. I've had a few of them say it to me. And there are some who have written that they didn't know themes were there until years later. You're just wrong about this. Sorry. I haven't really got anything to back it up except fifty years of literary theory, but I left that in my other pants. If you don't believe it, you don't believe it, but I suppose there is no objective proof.
About the male privilege, I'll just refer you to Wikipedia, 'kay? Male privilege is rights and status given to men because they are men. It refers to the systemic setup of a society, and a person's relative place in it. Not to gender roles at all.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Male_privilege
This is not gender stereotyping. It has nothing to do with what you do in life, or your social role.
There is certainly sexism against men. I wouldn't deny it.
Re: hoo boy, this opens up a can of worms....
Date: 2010-05-06 01:34 am (UTC)Actually, it was one of my two majors. See my comment about making an argument to an English department about yes, there are, in fact, right and wrong interpretations of literature and the getting a degree thing. It's also why I understand the importance of diction, syntax, and careful organization.
"No, writers don't always know what they're putting into their work. I've had a few of them say it to me."
Then they aren't very good writers.
"About the male privilege, I'll just refer you to Wikipedia, 'kay?"
::jaw drops:: I'm sorry, did you actually just cite WIKIPEDIA as your authoritative source? SERIOUSLY? A source that can be edited by any person with access to a computer, be them 5 years old, be them blessed with an IQ of 25, be them utterly ignorant of a topic, is not generally considered a convincing tool in an argument.
... Not to mention that your own cite has to admit that your sweeping, "statement of fact" claim is a controversial THEORY that does not even remotely have universal backing.
Do you even read what you write? Let me put two of your sentences in this post next to each other:
"Male privilege is rights and status given to men because they are men. It refers to the systemic setup of a society, and a person's relative place in it."
and
"It has nothing to do with what you do in life, or your social role."
Do you see the part where in one breath you say that male privilege is the systemic setup of a society and a person's relative place in it and the next breath you say it has nothing to do with your social role?? Where you UTTERLY CONTRADICT yourself with in a space of 2 lines?
EITHER male privilege has to do with a person's relative place (or, another word for place is "role") in society, or it has "nothing to do with" your social role. It. can't. be. both.
Or here's another good example:
"Male privilege is rights and status given to men because they are men.""This is not gender stereotyping."
Yes. it. is. If it's "given to men BECAUSE they are men" according to you, and, you claim, ALL men have it, you are stereotyping, wait for it, BY GENDER.
I'm sorry, but words have meanings. Actual meanings. The way you are using them here can most generously be described as "radical redefining." If you are making a sweeping generalization about a gender based on that gender, that IS gender stereotyping. If you are asserting an attitude that fosters a stereotype of social roles based on sex, that IS sexism.
~Aramada
Ok, that's it.
Date: 2010-05-06 05:47 am (UTC)Knowing the both of you, I know you guys will keep going at this ad infitium, so I am saying this now, as I am sick of seeing it further hitting my inbox, especially when:
1- I need to be working, not replying to arguments that have been arsed up out of all reasonable proportion.
2- I am as I previously said, in a fuckton of pain. Getting worked up about this downright unproductive argument is not going to help that in the slightest.
To that end, the both of you: Take it elsewhere or can it. Comments in anything other than ready agreement will start the lockdowns, banning, and eventual unfriending, which I really do not want to do, but well, I hurt, and I need some freaking sanity, not an inbox crowded with twenty more replies. Clear?
Re: Ok, that's it.
Date: 2010-05-06 05:52 am (UTC)Absolutely no reason for you to be getting worked up over anything more troubling than finding a comfortable sleeping position.
Heating, ice, and good drugs. Fast healing to you!
~Aramada