All things Transgender related
Comments
-
mrussel1 said:
See this is why I love Ben. He just brought a great argument and came from a different angle from where I was. The last paragraph is a winner. We are just creating more subgroups, getting further away from e pluribus unum.benjs said:
First, as the financial analyst on here has already stated - no, the financial world does not operate in abstracts. If you don't effectively mitigate financial risk, make decisions logically, show tangible results, you do not reap financial benefit, nor climb in that world. That's almost the exact opposite of "completely abstract". I could tell you this just from contact with financial advisors throughout my not-yet-30 years on this planet.ecdanc said:
Since you've tried to function as tone police a few times, I'm going to do the same for you: your inability to understand what I'm saying does not make what I'm saying meaningless. Just ask me about the parts/words you don't understand. I'm really trying to simplify things as much as I can, so help me help you.mrussel1 said:
I'm sorry, that first paragraph is meaningless. I read it six times and I can't draw any conclusion from it. All you're talking about is etymology. What terms do we better need to understand the relationship until moving onto what elements?ecdanc said:
I think there's two different things going on here:mrussel1 said:
So wait a minute.. "patriarchy" for your exceeds the traditional definition, and you are applying it to any/all genders. Yet your solution is not to assign a gender. So therefore, how can it be patriarchy or gender causing the issues? And logically following, how does not assigning the gender help the problem? This whole thing is circular reasoning. You point to gender, call out patriarchy, and then say it's not reliant upon gender. It all seems like an exercise in futility, to ease the transition of the .6%.ecdanc said:
Good point: I should clarify. The term "patriarchy"--in my discipline--exceeds/diverges from the etymological origins of the word. I intend "patriarchy" to refer to an historically specific set of power relations that relies upon, but is not coextensive with the discourse of gender.mrussel1 said:
You used the term patriarchy. How else would one interpret that comment than being an indictment of males for their injustice and inequalities. And for the record, you'll get no argument from me that men are the source of said ills in history. But I'm not sure how not identifying with a gender until the child decides will prevent the same from occurring.ecdanc said:
I think you're hearing what you want to hear. I've spoken only of gender as a discourse (as power/knowledge); I've made no comments about any specific subjects exercising power within that discourse.mrussel1 said:
So you mean males have caused injustices. Maybe we should all just identify as female until the time of selection (whatever that means), and then 50% of the population could cross over. Pretty sure we'll still have war, bullying, power struggles, etc. But hey, those boys won't cause any wars in their first three years of life, so that's good.ecdanc said:
Historically, the power/knowledge of gender has justified and sustained an indescribable array of injustices and inequalities (what might broadly be called “patriarchy”).cincybearcat said:
So you say it's harmful and you saw better place without it. Please describe for me what you believe to be harmful about it and how the world would be better off without it.ecdanc said:
I consider it a discursive formation without which the world would be a better place.cincybearcat said:
Gender is harmful? Now that you mention it, it would be nice for you to explain what you mean.ecdanc said:
As I’ve said briefly elsewhere in this thread, I believe that gender is harmful, as such. I have not emphasized that part of our motivation for fear it will chafe those here with different views.mrussel1 said:
@ecdanc?mrussel1 said:
So here's where I get hung up... The metrics I have seen show that the number of trans is .6% of the population. There's probably an MOE in there, but still maybe 1% tops. It seems like a lot of effort and construction of your life for something that is very unlikely that they will identify with a gender different than their birth sex. And how do you know that there's no unintended consequences of that action, regarding the child's assimilation into the chosen gender? Perhaps they have trouble adapting and feel excluded in pre-K, etc.ecdanc said:
Good question. The goal is to minimize the extent which they have to “transition.” Transitioning is very often a traumatic process. If no one was assigned a gender at birth, no one would have to transition. Trying to come as close to that for P as we can.mcgruff10 said:I still don’t get the whole gender neutral thing. What is the purpose? Won’t a person transition either way?
As for your last sentence: I do what I can.
First, I specifically said patriarchy does rely upon gender, but is not coextensive with it. I'll try to be clearer. Gender is a broad discursive formation that operates in multiple forms across multiple times and spaces. Patriarchy--as I'm using it--is a specific set of power relations that has emerged (and endured) in one of those times and spaces. We need to get the relationship of these terms figured out before we move onto the other elements.
With risk of jumping the gun, however, I'll go ahead and say I'm not sure I understand the other point running through here. Gender exists as a discourse. In my perfect world, it would not. Therefore, I'm doing everything I can to resist the discourse from within it.
One last point: I may not have all the answers, but .6% of the world population is over 45 million people. I'd do a lot to make that many peoples' lives better.
Now my apologies, perhaps it's because I operate it in a financial world and we don't speak in the abstract. I worked in a heavily academic financial environment for about 10 years and it was essentially mental masturbation. You had reams of analysts and engineers flowing through with data sets where 1. they couldn't draw concrete conclusions or 2. what they were recommending was completely unable to be operational. I think my friend @benjs has suffered through this in his career as well.
Your 2nd paragraph seems to be a bit of a non sequitur, but I'm not one to pass up an opportunity: the world of finance is completely abstract.
Next, your statement very clearly reads that the existence of genders is the catalyst to an exploitable power dynamic where men receive the advantage. I might agree with you if we didn't see so many non-gender patterns of people organizing themselves into groups, one group recognizing a unique advantage and exploiting the situation, and disregarding those who are poised to be in a losing position. Religion. Politics. Nationalism.
If we are universally opposed to divisions, it's time to stop talking about categories of division, and instead commit to actively embrace differences - the universal catalyst to reparations between fractured societies. Until our attitude surrounding those who differ from us becomes a positive one instead of a negative one, this divide won't heal, at best it just won't worsen.Well said, M. I have to tell you though, it's unfair. Ben has less than half my years and at least twice my brain power. And you're in that league too, M. It just ain't fair! (I dig you guys anyway!)
"It's a sad and beautiful world"-Roberto Benigni0 -
area of focus in that realm?ecdanc said:
Good memory!dignin said:
If I remember correctly, a scholar in humanities.mrussel1 said:
I'm at work, on conference calls and doing 20 other things. This is filler for me because I need constant stimulation. You never said you were a scholar in another field. You said you weren't a philosophy scholar. Sorry that I made such a wild leap.ecdanc said:
Nothing was "implied"--you're just not a very attentive reader.mrussel1 said:
Hit expand and see my bold.. you said you weren't a scholar, but sorry I didn't read it to some implied point that you weren't a scholar on a particular topic.ecdanc said:
I never said I'm not a scholar. Man, read what I actually say. I've pointed out areas in which I'm not a scholar--that's not the same thing as "I'm not a scholar." I'm a tenured professor with an active research agenda, fwiw.mrussel1 said:
There's a time and place for pontificating. I said that multiple times. My world is not that place. I'm not treating your job dismissively in the least. I don't even know what it is. You say you're in academia but not a scholar. What does that mean? Are you a grad assistant? Are you an adjunct? Are you someone not expected to publish? So don't get all offended. I'm a big fan of academia. But like I said, when you're running a P&L, you have to make a call, usually with imperfect information.ecdanc said:What you call "mental masturbation," I call the advancement of knowledge. If I treated your job as dismissively as you're treating mind, you'd throw a fit.
And ffs, this is you trying not be dismissive? Do you know what the word "pontificating" means?!?!?
Regarding the 'pontificate', where I come from we don't use it as a disparaging term...it's just over the top pondering. We have our own definition.. like patriarchy.
_____________________________________SIGNATURE________________________________________________
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '140 -
My department is English, I’m an American literature specialist, whose primary research area is literature and American politics (esp. radical politics) from about 1880-1940s. I have a secondary research interest in Theory, and I also publish on academic freedom and pedagogy.mickeyrat said:
area of focus in that realm?ecdanc said:
Good memory!dignin said:
If I remember correctly, a scholar in humanities.mrussel1 said:
I'm at work, on conference calls and doing 20 other things. This is filler for me because I need constant stimulation. You never said you were a scholar in another field. You said you weren't a philosophy scholar. Sorry that I made such a wild leap.ecdanc said:
Nothing was "implied"--you're just not a very attentive reader.mrussel1 said:
Hit expand and see my bold.. you said you weren't a scholar, but sorry I didn't read it to some implied point that you weren't a scholar on a particular topic.ecdanc said:
I never said I'm not a scholar. Man, read what I actually say. I've pointed out areas in which I'm not a scholar--that's not the same thing as "I'm not a scholar." I'm a tenured professor with an active research agenda, fwiw.mrussel1 said:
There's a time and place for pontificating. I said that multiple times. My world is not that place. I'm not treating your job dismissively in the least. I don't even know what it is. You say you're in academia but not a scholar. What does that mean? Are you a grad assistant? Are you an adjunct? Are you someone not expected to publish? So don't get all offended. I'm a big fan of academia. But like I said, when you're running a P&L, you have to make a call, usually with imperfect information.ecdanc said:What you call "mental masturbation," I call the advancement of knowledge. If I treated your job as dismissively as you're treating mind, you'd throw a fit.
And ffs, this is you trying not be dismissive? Do you know what the word "pontificating" means?!?!?
Regarding the 'pontificate', where I come from we don't use it as a disparaging term...it's just over the top pondering. We have our own definition.. like patriarchy.Post edited by ecdanc on0 -
I am a HS dropout(senior year no less) in 86. GED recipient in 95. Drunken Pot smoking crackhead (yes I am serious)Sober since 06. I drive a truck. And listen to a lot of stuff via audiobook. And despite some choices throughtout life, I consider myself fairly intelligent to a point.... also willing to admit when I am wrong or at least open to the eventuality.....ecdanc said:
My department is English, I’m an American literature specialist, whose primary research area is literature and American politics (esp. radical politics) from about 1880-1940s. I have a secondary research interest in Theory, and I publish on academic freedom and pedagogy.mickeyrat said:
area of focus in that realm?ecdanc said:
Good memory!dignin said:
If I remember correctly, a scholar in humanities.mrussel1 said:
I'm at work, on conference calls and doing 20 other things. This is filler for me because I need constant stimulation. You never said you were a scholar in another field. You said you weren't a philosophy scholar. Sorry that I made such a wild leap.ecdanc said:
Nothing was "implied"--you're just not a very attentive reader.mrussel1 said:
Hit expand and see my bold.. you said you weren't a scholar, but sorry I didn't read it to some implied point that you weren't a scholar on a particular topic.ecdanc said:
I never said I'm not a scholar. Man, read what I actually say. I've pointed out areas in which I'm not a scholar--that's not the same thing as "I'm not a scholar." I'm a tenured professor with an active research agenda, fwiw.mrussel1 said:
There's a time and place for pontificating. I said that multiple times. My world is not that place. I'm not treating your job dismissively in the least. I don't even know what it is. You say you're in academia but not a scholar. What does that mean? Are you a grad assistant? Are you an adjunct? Are you someone not expected to publish? So don't get all offended. I'm a big fan of academia. But like I said, when you're running a P&L, you have to make a call, usually with imperfect information.ecdanc said:What you call "mental masturbation," I call the advancement of knowledge. If I treated your job as dismissively as you're treating mind, you'd throw a fit.
And ffs, this is you trying not be dismissive? Do you know what the word "pontificating" means?!?!?
Regarding the 'pontificate', where I come from we don't use it as a disparaging term...it's just over the top pondering. We have our own definition.. like patriarchy.
_____________________________________SIGNATURE________________________________________________
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '140 -
I’m a high school dropout too! We’re already finding things we have in common.mickeyrat said:
I am a HS dropout(senior year no less) in 86. GED recipient in 95. Drunken Pot smoking crackhead (yes I am serious)Sober since 06. I drive a truck. And listen to a lot of stuff via audiobook. And despite some choices throughtout life, I consider myself fairly intelligent to a point.... also willing to admit when I am wrong or at least open to the eventuality.....ecdanc said:
My department is English, I’m an American literature specialist, whose primary research area is literature and American politics (esp. radical politics) from about 1880-1940s. I have a secondary research interest in Theory, and I publish on academic freedom and pedagogy.mickeyrat said:
area of focus in that realm?ecdanc said:
Good memory!dignin said:
If I remember correctly, a scholar in humanities.mrussel1 said:
I'm at work, on conference calls and doing 20 other things. This is filler for me because I need constant stimulation. You never said you were a scholar in another field. You said you weren't a philosophy scholar. Sorry that I made such a wild leap.ecdanc said:
Nothing was "implied"--you're just not a very attentive reader.mrussel1 said:
Hit expand and see my bold.. you said you weren't a scholar, but sorry I didn't read it to some implied point that you weren't a scholar on a particular topic.ecdanc said:
I never said I'm not a scholar. Man, read what I actually say. I've pointed out areas in which I'm not a scholar--that's not the same thing as "I'm not a scholar." I'm a tenured professor with an active research agenda, fwiw.mrussel1 said:
There's a time and place for pontificating. I said that multiple times. My world is not that place. I'm not treating your job dismissively in the least. I don't even know what it is. You say you're in academia but not a scholar. What does that mean? Are you a grad assistant? Are you an adjunct? Are you someone not expected to publish? So don't get all offended. I'm a big fan of academia. But like I said, when you're running a P&L, you have to make a call, usually with imperfect information.ecdanc said:What you call "mental masturbation," I call the advancement of knowledge. If I treated your job as dismissively as you're treating mind, you'd throw a fit.
And ffs, this is you trying not be dismissive? Do you know what the word "pontificating" means?!?!?
Regarding the 'pontificate', where I come from we don't use it as a disparaging term...it's just over the top pondering. We have our own definition.. like patriarchy.
0 -
ecdanc said:
I’m a high school dropout too! We’re already finding things we have in common.mickeyrat said:
I am a HS dropout(senior year no less) in 86. GED recipient in 95. Drunken Pot smoking crackhead (yes I am serious)Sober since 06. I drive a truck. And listen to a lot of stuff via audiobook. And despite some choices throughtout life, I consider myself fairly intelligent to a point.... also willing to admit when I am wrong or at least open to the eventuality.....ecdanc said:
My department is English, I’m an American literature specialist, whose primary research area is literature and American politics (esp. radical politics) from about 1880-1940s. I have a secondary research interest in Theory, and I publish on academic freedom and pedagogy.mickeyrat said:
area of focus in that realm?ecdanc said:
Good memory!dignin said:
If I remember correctly, a scholar in humanities.mrussel1 said:
I'm at work, on conference calls and doing 20 other things. This is filler for me because I need constant stimulation. You never said you were a scholar in another field. You said you weren't a philosophy scholar. Sorry that I made such a wild leap.ecdanc said:
Nothing was "implied"--you're just not a very attentive reader.mrussel1 said:
Hit expand and see my bold.. you said you weren't a scholar, but sorry I didn't read it to some implied point that you weren't a scholar on a particular topic.ecdanc said:
I never said I'm not a scholar. Man, read what I actually say. I've pointed out areas in which I'm not a scholar--that's not the same thing as "I'm not a scholar." I'm a tenured professor with an active research agenda, fwiw.mrussel1 said:
There's a time and place for pontificating. I said that multiple times. My world is not that place. I'm not treating your job dismissively in the least. I don't even know what it is. You say you're in academia but not a scholar. What does that mean? Are you a grad assistant? Are you an adjunct? Are you someone not expected to publish? So don't get all offended. I'm a big fan of academia. But like I said, when you're running a P&L, you have to make a call, usually with imperfect information.ecdanc said:What you call "mental masturbation," I call the advancement of knowledge. If I treated your job as dismissively as you're treating mind, you'd throw a fit.
And ffs, this is you trying not be dismissive? Do you know what the word "pontificating" means?!?!?
Regarding the 'pontificate', where I come from we don't use it as a disparaging term...it's just over the top pondering. We have our own definition.. like patriarchy.I find it easier to have discussions when there is ome degree of familiarity between those in the discussion.so how long was your evolution in thinking on this particular subject or at least the identity side of of it? not to suggest you have completed that evolution but surely as you described some of your upbringing, its been quite the transformation, albeit on in progress._____________________________________SIGNATURE________________________________________________
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '140 -
Began in college. Picked up pace in grad school.mickeyrat said:ecdanc said:
I’m a high school dropout too! We’re already finding things we have in common.mickeyrat said:
I am a HS dropout(senior year no less) in 86. GED recipient in 95. Drunken Pot smoking crackhead (yes I am serious)Sober since 06. I drive a truck. And listen to a lot of stuff via audiobook. And despite some choices throughtout life, I consider myself fairly intelligent to a point.... also willing to admit when I am wrong or at least open to the eventuality.....ecdanc said:
My department is English, I’m an American literature specialist, whose primary research area is literature and American politics (esp. radical politics) from about 1880-1940s. I have a secondary research interest in Theory, and I publish on academic freedom and pedagogy.mickeyrat said:
area of focus in that realm?ecdanc said:
Good memory!dignin said:
If I remember correctly, a scholar in humanities.mrussel1 said:
I'm at work, on conference calls and doing 20 other things. This is filler for me because I need constant stimulation. You never said you were a scholar in another field. You said you weren't a philosophy scholar. Sorry that I made such a wild leap.ecdanc said:
Nothing was "implied"--you're just not a very attentive reader.mrussel1 said:
Hit expand and see my bold.. you said you weren't a scholar, but sorry I didn't read it to some implied point that you weren't a scholar on a particular topic.ecdanc said:
I never said I'm not a scholar. Man, read what I actually say. I've pointed out areas in which I'm not a scholar--that's not the same thing as "I'm not a scholar." I'm a tenured professor with an active research agenda, fwiw.mrussel1 said:
There's a time and place for pontificating. I said that multiple times. My world is not that place. I'm not treating your job dismissively in the least. I don't even know what it is. You say you're in academia but not a scholar. What does that mean? Are you a grad assistant? Are you an adjunct? Are you someone not expected to publish? So don't get all offended. I'm a big fan of academia. But like I said, when you're running a P&L, you have to make a call, usually with imperfect information.ecdanc said:What you call "mental masturbation," I call the advancement of knowledge. If I treated your job as dismissively as you're treating mind, you'd throw a fit.
And ffs, this is you trying not be dismissive? Do you know what the word "pontificating" means?!?!?
Regarding the 'pontificate', where I come from we don't use it as a disparaging term...it's just over the top pondering. We have our own definition.. like patriarchy.I find it easier to have discussions when there is ome degree of familiarity between those in the discussion.so how long was your evolution in thinking on this particular subject or at least the identity side of of it? not to suggest you have completed that evolution but surely as you described some of your upbringing, its been quite the transformation, albeit on in progress.0 -
6 or 7 yrs to get to this point for you then?ecdanc said:
Began in college. Picked up pace in grad school.mickeyrat said:ecdanc said:
I’m a high school dropout too! We’re already finding things we have in common.mickeyrat said:
I am a HS dropout(senior year no less) in 86. GED recipient in 95. Drunken Pot smoking crackhead (yes I am serious)Sober since 06. I drive a truck. And listen to a lot of stuff via audiobook. And despite some choices throughtout life, I consider myself fairly intelligent to a point.... also willing to admit when I am wrong or at least open to the eventuality.....ecdanc said:
My department is English, I’m an American literature specialist, whose primary research area is literature and American politics (esp. radical politics) from about 1880-1940s. I have a secondary research interest in Theory, and I publish on academic freedom and pedagogy.mickeyrat said:
area of focus in that realm?ecdanc said:
Good memory!dignin said:
If I remember correctly, a scholar in humanities.mrussel1 said:
I'm at work, on conference calls and doing 20 other things. This is filler for me because I need constant stimulation. You never said you were a scholar in another field. You said you weren't a philosophy scholar. Sorry that I made such a wild leap.ecdanc said:
Nothing was "implied"--you're just not a very attentive reader.mrussel1 said:
Hit expand and see my bold.. you said you weren't a scholar, but sorry I didn't read it to some implied point that you weren't a scholar on a particular topic.ecdanc said:
I never said I'm not a scholar. Man, read what I actually say. I've pointed out areas in which I'm not a scholar--that's not the same thing as "I'm not a scholar." I'm a tenured professor with an active research agenda, fwiw.mrussel1 said:
There's a time and place for pontificating. I said that multiple times. My world is not that place. I'm not treating your job dismissively in the least. I don't even know what it is. You say you're in academia but not a scholar. What does that mean? Are you a grad assistant? Are you an adjunct? Are you someone not expected to publish? So don't get all offended. I'm a big fan of academia. But like I said, when you're running a P&L, you have to make a call, usually with imperfect information.ecdanc said:What you call "mental masturbation," I call the advancement of knowledge. If I treated your job as dismissively as you're treating mind, you'd throw a fit.
And ffs, this is you trying not be dismissive? Do you know what the word "pontificating" means?!?!?
Regarding the 'pontificate', where I come from we don't use it as a disparaging term...it's just over the top pondering. We have our own definition.. like patriarchy.I find it easier to have discussions when there is ome degree of familiarity between those in the discussion.so how long was your evolution in thinking on this particular subject or at least the identity side of of it? not to suggest you have completed that evolution but surely as you described some of your upbringing, its been quite the transformation, albeit on in progress.
_____________________________________SIGNATURE________________________________________________
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '140 -
More like 15. In fits and starts.mickeyrat said:
6 or 7 yrs to get to this point for you then?ecdanc said:
Began in college. Picked up pace in grad school.mickeyrat said:ecdanc said:
I’m a high school dropout too! We’re already finding things we have in common.mickeyrat said:
I am a HS dropout(senior year no less) in 86. GED recipient in 95. Drunken Pot smoking crackhead (yes I am serious)Sober since 06. I drive a truck. And listen to a lot of stuff via audiobook. And despite some choices throughtout life, I consider myself fairly intelligent to a point.... also willing to admit when I am wrong or at least open to the eventuality.....ecdanc said:
My department is English, I’m an American literature specialist, whose primary research area is literature and American politics (esp. radical politics) from about 1880-1940s. I have a secondary research interest in Theory, and I publish on academic freedom and pedagogy.mickeyrat said:
area of focus in that realm?ecdanc said:
Good memory!dignin said:
If I remember correctly, a scholar in humanities.mrussel1 said:
I'm at work, on conference calls and doing 20 other things. This is filler for me because I need constant stimulation. You never said you were a scholar in another field. You said you weren't a philosophy scholar. Sorry that I made such a wild leap.ecdanc said:
Nothing was "implied"--you're just not a very attentive reader.mrussel1 said:
Hit expand and see my bold.. you said you weren't a scholar, but sorry I didn't read it to some implied point that you weren't a scholar on a particular topic.ecdanc said:
I never said I'm not a scholar. Man, read what I actually say. I've pointed out areas in which I'm not a scholar--that's not the same thing as "I'm not a scholar." I'm a tenured professor with an active research agenda, fwiw.mrussel1 said:
There's a time and place for pontificating. I said that multiple times. My world is not that place. I'm not treating your job dismissively in the least. I don't even know what it is. You say you're in academia but not a scholar. What does that mean? Are you a grad assistant? Are you an adjunct? Are you someone not expected to publish? So don't get all offended. I'm a big fan of academia. But like I said, when you're running a P&L, you have to make a call, usually with imperfect information.ecdanc said:What you call "mental masturbation," I call the advancement of knowledge. If I treated your job as dismissively as you're treating mind, you'd throw a fit.
And ffs, this is you trying not be dismissive? Do you know what the word "pontificating" means?!?!?
Regarding the 'pontificate', where I come from we don't use it as a disparaging term...it's just over the top pondering. We have our own definition.. like patriarchy.I find it easier to have discussions when there is ome degree of familiarity between those in the discussion.so how long was your evolution in thinking on this particular subject or at least the identity side of of it? not to suggest you have completed that evolution but surely as you described some of your upbringing, its been quite the transformation, albeit on in progress.0 -
how much space did you have to evolve and grow to this current understanding?ecdanc said:
More like 15. In fits and starts.mickeyrat said:
6 or 7 yrs to get to this point for you then?ecdanc said:
Began in college. Picked up pace in grad school.mickeyrat said:ecdanc said:
I’m a high school dropout too! We’re already finding things we have in common.mickeyrat said:
I am a HS dropout(senior year no less) in 86. GED recipient in 95. Drunken Pot smoking crackhead (yes I am serious)Sober since 06. I drive a truck. And listen to a lot of stuff via audiobook. And despite some choices throughtout life, I consider myself fairly intelligent to a point.... also willing to admit when I am wrong or at least open to the eventuality.....ecdanc said:
My department is English, I’m an American literature specialist, whose primary research area is literature and American politics (esp. radical politics) from about 1880-1940s. I have a secondary research interest in Theory, and I publish on academic freedom and pedagogy.mickeyrat said:
area of focus in that realm?ecdanc said:
Good memory!dignin said:
If I remember correctly, a scholar in humanities.mrussel1 said:
I'm at work, on conference calls and doing 20 other things. This is filler for me because I need constant stimulation. You never said you were a scholar in another field. You said you weren't a philosophy scholar. Sorry that I made such a wild leap.ecdanc said:
Nothing was "implied"--you're just not a very attentive reader.mrussel1 said:
Hit expand and see my bold.. you said you weren't a scholar, but sorry I didn't read it to some implied point that you weren't a scholar on a particular topic.ecdanc said:
I never said I'm not a scholar. Man, read what I actually say. I've pointed out areas in which I'm not a scholar--that's not the same thing as "I'm not a scholar." I'm a tenured professor with an active research agenda, fwiw.mrussel1 said:
There's a time and place for pontificating. I said that multiple times. My world is not that place. I'm not treating your job dismissively in the least. I don't even know what it is. You say you're in academia but not a scholar. What does that mean? Are you a grad assistant? Are you an adjunct? Are you someone not expected to publish? So don't get all offended. I'm a big fan of academia. But like I said, when you're running a P&L, you have to make a call, usually with imperfect information.ecdanc said:What you call "mental masturbation," I call the advancement of knowledge. If I treated your job as dismissively as you're treating mind, you'd throw a fit.
And ffs, this is you trying not be dismissive? Do you know what the word "pontificating" means?!?!?
Regarding the 'pontificate', where I come from we don't use it as a disparaging term...it's just over the top pondering. We have our own definition.. like patriarchy.I find it easier to have discussions when there is ome degree of familiarity between those in the discussion.so how long was your evolution in thinking on this particular subject or at least the identity side of of it? not to suggest you have completed that evolution but surely as you described some of your upbringing, its been quite the transformation, albeit on in progress.
_____________________________________SIGNATURE________________________________________________
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '140 -
At first, very little. Super religious college. Later a bit more. Money struggles also had a big effect.mickeyrat said:
how much space did you have to evolve and grow to this current understanding?ecdanc said:
More like 15. In fits and starts.mickeyrat said:
6 or 7 yrs to get to this point for you then?ecdanc said:
Began in college. Picked up pace in grad school.mickeyrat said:ecdanc said:
I’m a high school dropout too! We’re already finding things we have in common.mickeyrat said:
I am a HS dropout(senior year no less) in 86. GED recipient in 95. Drunken Pot smoking crackhead (yes I am serious)Sober since 06. I drive a truck. And listen to a lot of stuff via audiobook. And despite some choices throughtout life, I consider myself fairly intelligent to a point.... also willing to admit when I am wrong or at least open to the eventuality.....ecdanc said:
My department is English, I’m an American literature specialist, whose primary research area is literature and American politics (esp. radical politics) from about 1880-1940s. I have a secondary research interest in Theory, and I publish on academic freedom and pedagogy.mickeyrat said:
area of focus in that realm?ecdanc said:
Good memory!dignin said:
If I remember correctly, a scholar in humanities.mrussel1 said:
I'm at work, on conference calls and doing 20 other things. This is filler for me because I need constant stimulation. You never said you were a scholar in another field. You said you weren't a philosophy scholar. Sorry that I made such a wild leap.ecdanc said:
Nothing was "implied"--you're just not a very attentive reader.mrussel1 said:
Hit expand and see my bold.. you said you weren't a scholar, but sorry I didn't read it to some implied point that you weren't a scholar on a particular topic.ecdanc said:
I never said I'm not a scholar. Man, read what I actually say. I've pointed out areas in which I'm not a scholar--that's not the same thing as "I'm not a scholar." I'm a tenured professor with an active research agenda, fwiw.mrussel1 said:
There's a time and place for pontificating. I said that multiple times. My world is not that place. I'm not treating your job dismissively in the least. I don't even know what it is. You say you're in academia but not a scholar. What does that mean? Are you a grad assistant? Are you an adjunct? Are you someone not expected to publish? So don't get all offended. I'm a big fan of academia. But like I said, when you're running a P&L, you have to make a call, usually with imperfect information.ecdanc said:What you call "mental masturbation," I call the advancement of knowledge. If I treated your job as dismissively as you're treating mind, you'd throw a fit.
And ffs, this is you trying not be dismissive? Do you know what the word "pontificating" means?!?!?
Regarding the 'pontificate', where I come from we don't use it as a disparaging term...it's just over the top pondering. We have our own definition.. like patriarchy.I find it easier to have discussions when there is ome degree of familiarity between those in the discussion.so how long was your evolution in thinking on this particular subject or at least the identity side of of it? not to suggest you have completed that evolution but surely as you described some of your upbringing, its been quite the transformation, albeit on in progress.
0 -
it at least became something you could arrive at in your own tine. is that a generally fair statement?ecdanc said:
At first, very little. Super religious college. Later a bit more. Money struggles also had a big effect.mickeyrat said:
how much space did you have to evolve and grow to this current understanding?ecdanc said:
More like 15. In fits and starts.mickeyrat said:
6 or 7 yrs to get to this point for you then?ecdanc said:
Began in college. Picked up pace in grad school.mickeyrat said:ecdanc said:
I’m a high school dropout too! We’re already finding things we have in common.mickeyrat said:
I am a HS dropout(senior year no less) in 86. GED recipient in 95. Drunken Pot smoking crackhead (yes I am serious)Sober since 06. I drive a truck. And listen to a lot of stuff via audiobook. And despite some choices throughtout life, I consider myself fairly intelligent to a point.... also willing to admit when I am wrong or at least open to the eventuality.....ecdanc said:
My department is English, I’m an American literature specialist, whose primary research area is literature and American politics (esp. radical politics) from about 1880-1940s. I have a secondary research interest in Theory, and I publish on academic freedom and pedagogy.mickeyrat said:
area of focus in that realm?ecdanc said:
Good memory!dignin said:
If I remember correctly, a scholar in humanities.mrussel1 said:
I'm at work, on conference calls and doing 20 other things. This is filler for me because I need constant stimulation. You never said you were a scholar in another field. You said you weren't a philosophy scholar. Sorry that I made such a wild leap.ecdanc said:
Nothing was "implied"--you're just not a very attentive reader.mrussel1 said:
Hit expand and see my bold.. you said you weren't a scholar, but sorry I didn't read it to some implied point that you weren't a scholar on a particular topic.ecdanc said:
I never said I'm not a scholar. Man, read what I actually say. I've pointed out areas in which I'm not a scholar--that's not the same thing as "I'm not a scholar." I'm a tenured professor with an active research agenda, fwiw.mrussel1 said:
There's a time and place for pontificating. I said that multiple times. My world is not that place. I'm not treating your job dismissively in the least. I don't even know what it is. You say you're in academia but not a scholar. What does that mean? Are you a grad assistant? Are you an adjunct? Are you someone not expected to publish? So don't get all offended. I'm a big fan of academia. But like I said, when you're running a P&L, you have to make a call, usually with imperfect information.ecdanc said:What you call "mental masturbation," I call the advancement of knowledge. If I treated your job as dismissively as you're treating mind, you'd throw a fit.
And ffs, this is you trying not be dismissive? Do you know what the word "pontificating" means?!?!?
Regarding the 'pontificate', where I come from we don't use it as a disparaging term...it's just over the top pondering. We have our own definition.. like patriarchy.I find it easier to have discussions when there is ome degree of familiarity between those in the discussion.so how long was your evolution in thinking on this particular subject or at least the identity side of of it? not to suggest you have completed that evolution but surely as you described some of your upbringing, its been quite the transformation, albeit on in progress.
_____________________________________SIGNATURE________________________________________________
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '140 -
It is a point I daily regret not reaching sooner.mickeyrat said:
it at least became something you could arrive at in your own tine. is that a generally fair statement?ecdanc said:
At first, very little. Super religious college. Later a bit more. Money struggles also had a big effect.mickeyrat said:
how much space did you have to evolve and grow to this current understanding?ecdanc said:
More like 15. In fits and starts.mickeyrat said:
6 or 7 yrs to get to this point for you then?ecdanc said:
Began in college. Picked up pace in grad school.mickeyrat said:ecdanc said:
I’m a high school dropout too! We’re already finding things we have in common.mickeyrat said:
I am a HS dropout(senior year no less) in 86. GED recipient in 95. Drunken Pot smoking crackhead (yes I am serious)Sober since 06. I drive a truck. And listen to a lot of stuff via audiobook. And despite some choices throughtout life, I consider myself fairly intelligent to a point.... also willing to admit when I am wrong or at least open to the eventuality.....ecdanc said:
My department is English, I’m an American literature specialist, whose primary research area is literature and American politics (esp. radical politics) from about 1880-1940s. I have a secondary research interest in Theory, and I publish on academic freedom and pedagogy.mickeyrat said:
area of focus in that realm?ecdanc said:
Good memory!dignin said:
If I remember correctly, a scholar in humanities.mrussel1 said:
I'm at work, on conference calls and doing 20 other things. This is filler for me because I need constant stimulation. You never said you were a scholar in another field. You said you weren't a philosophy scholar. Sorry that I made such a wild leap.ecdanc said:
Nothing was "implied"--you're just not a very attentive reader.mrussel1 said:
Hit expand and see my bold.. you said you weren't a scholar, but sorry I didn't read it to some implied point that you weren't a scholar on a particular topic.ecdanc said:
I never said I'm not a scholar. Man, read what I actually say. I've pointed out areas in which I'm not a scholar--that's not the same thing as "I'm not a scholar." I'm a tenured professor with an active research agenda, fwiw.mrussel1 said:
There's a time and place for pontificating. I said that multiple times. My world is not that place. I'm not treating your job dismissively in the least. I don't even know what it is. You say you're in academia but not a scholar. What does that mean? Are you a grad assistant? Are you an adjunct? Are you someone not expected to publish? So don't get all offended. I'm a big fan of academia. But like I said, when you're running a P&L, you have to make a call, usually with imperfect information.ecdanc said:What you call "mental masturbation," I call the advancement of knowledge. If I treated your job as dismissively as you're treating mind, you'd throw a fit.
And ffs, this is you trying not be dismissive? Do you know what the word "pontificating" means?!?!?
Regarding the 'pontificate', where I come from we don't use it as a disparaging term...it's just over the top pondering. We have our own definition.. like patriarchy.I find it easier to have discussions when there is ome degree of familiarity between those in the discussion.so how long was your evolution in thinking on this particular subject or at least the identity side of of it? not to suggest you have completed that evolution but surely as you described some of your upbringing, its been quite the transformation, albeit on in progress.0 -
be that as it may, an observation is , you dont seem willing to afford the rest of us the same room, but rather are pushing your regret off on us. its not fair. am fairly sure most will evolve on this subject to the positive. honestly some of your efforts here are standing in the way of that. I asdume your desire is for all of to arrive at similar thinking. Cut us a little slack. your journey took 15 yrs, dont expect ours to be overnightecdanc said:
It is a point I daily regret not reaching sooner.mickeyrat said:
it at least became something you could arrive at in your own tine. is that a generally fair statement?ecdanc said:
At first, very little. Super religious college. Later a bit more. Money struggles also had a big effect.mickeyrat said:
how much space did you have to evolve and grow to this current understanding?ecdanc said:
More like 15. In fits and starts.mickeyrat said:
6 or 7 yrs to get to this point for you then?ecdanc said:
Began in college. Picked up pace in grad school.mickeyrat said:ecdanc said:
I’m a high school dropout too! We’re already finding things we have in common.mickeyrat said:
I am a HS dropout(senior year no less) in 86. GED recipient in 95. Drunken Pot smoking crackhead (yes I am serious)Sober since 06. I drive a truck. And listen to a lot of stuff via audiobook. And despite some choices throughtout life, I consider myself fairly intelligent to a point.... also willing to admit when I am wrong or at least open to the eventuality.....ecdanc said:
My department is English, I’m an American literature specialist, whose primary research area is literature and American politics (esp. radical politics) from about 1880-1940s. I have a secondary research interest in Theory, and I publish on academic freedom and pedagogy.mickeyrat said:
area of focus in that realm?ecdanc said:
Good memory!dignin said:
If I remember correctly, a scholar in humanities.mrussel1 said:
I'm at work, on conference calls and doing 20 other things. This is filler for me because I need constant stimulation. You never said you were a scholar in another field. You said you weren't a philosophy scholar. Sorry that I made such a wild leap.ecdanc said:
Nothing was "implied"--you're just not a very attentive reader.mrussel1 said:
Hit expand and see my bold.. you said you weren't a scholar, but sorry I didn't read it to some implied point that you weren't a scholar on a particular topic.ecdanc said:
I never said I'm not a scholar. Man, read what I actually say. I've pointed out areas in which I'm not a scholar--that's not the same thing as "I'm not a scholar." I'm a tenured professor with an active research agenda, fwiw.mrussel1 said:
There's a time and place for pontificating. I said that multiple times. My world is not that place. I'm not treating your job dismissively in the least. I don't even know what it is. You say you're in academia but not a scholar. What does that mean? Are you a grad assistant? Are you an adjunct? Are you someone not expected to publish? So don't get all offended. I'm a big fan of academia. But like I said, when you're running a P&L, you have to make a call, usually with imperfect information.ecdanc said:What you call "mental masturbation," I call the advancement of knowledge. If I treated your job as dismissively as you're treating mind, you'd throw a fit.
And ffs, this is you trying not be dismissive? Do you know what the word "pontificating" means?!?!?
Regarding the 'pontificate', where I come from we don't use it as a disparaging term...it's just over the top pondering. We have our own definition.. like patriarchy.I find it easier to have discussions when there is ome degree of familiarity between those in the discussion.so how long was your evolution in thinking on this particular subject or at least the identity side of of it? not to suggest you have completed that evolution but surely as you described some of your upbringing, its been quite the transformation, albeit on in progress.
_____________________________________SIGNATURE________________________________________________
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '140 -
You spoke about what broadly would be considered as patriarchy. Broadly speaking, patriarchy isn't decoupled with some form of male-centrism. If your self/circle/industry has assigned a new meaning that is either different from, or disagrees with the one understood by almost everyone else, not much I can do about it.ecdanc said:
You're new to the conversation, so I'll cut you some slack: but the part I bolded is pure nonsense. Words operate differently in different discourses. I'm simply and directly telling you how I'm using the word, because that's how it's used in my discipline. Can I understand every word you use in your profession simply by looking at dictionary.com?benjs said:
You were unclear in the way you phrased your argument, threw in unnecessary prose, bastardized the definition of patriarchy to a non-dictionary definition that only you would know, made inaccurate claims about finance to a financial advisor, and then criticized said person of being dismissive of academic thought. In my experience in academia (Bachelor's in Structural Engineering), we debated based on a foundation of established facts and evidence. Have they changed that since I left?ecdanc said:
I was trying to be polite. When I said, "we need go get the relationship of these terms figured out..." i was trying to gently say "you're entirely misunderstanding what I'm saying." Being as generous as I could with your post, I was suggesting that you might have a point about the relationship between patriarchy and gender, but you needed to back up, because your point wasn't responding to what I actually said. So, let me ask, which part of the relationship between gender and patriarchy are you struggling with?mrussel1 said:
I asked the question. I'll type it again: What terms do we better need to understand the relationship until moving onto what elements? This is what I need to understand to understand what you are saying. You said "We need to get the relationship of these terms figured out before we onto the other elements". I'm asking what terms and what elements. Make that statement again, with more detail.ecdanc said:
Since you've tried to function as tone police a few times, I'm going to do the same for you: your inability to understand what I'm saying does not make what I'm saying meaningless. Just ask me about the parts/words you don't understand. I'm really trying to simplify things as much as I can, so help me help you.mrussel1 said:
I'm sorry, that first paragraph is meaningless. I read it six times and I can't draw any conclusion from it. All you're talking about is etymology. What terms do we better need to understand the relationship until moving onto what elements?ecdanc said:
I think there's two different things going on here:mrussel1 said:
So wait a minute.. "patriarchy" for your exceeds the traditional definition, and you are applying it to any/all genders. Yet your solution is not to assign a gender. So therefore, how can it be patriarchy or gender causing the issues? And logically following, how does not assigning the gender help the problem? This whole thing is circular reasoning. You point to gender, call out patriarchy, and then say it's not reliant upon gender. It all seems like an exercise in futility, to ease the transition of the .6%.ecdanc said:
Good point: I should clarify. The term "patriarchy"--in my discipline--exceeds/diverges from the etymological origins of the word. I intend "patriarchy" to refer to an historically specific set of power relations that relies upon, but is not coextensive with the discourse of gender.mrussel1 said:
You used the term patriarchy. How else would one interpret that comment than being an indictment of males for their injustice and inequalities. And for the record, you'll get no argument from me that men are the source of said ills in history. But I'm not sure how not identifying with a gender until the child decides will prevent the same from occurring.ecdanc said:
I think you're hearing what you want to hear. I've spoken only of gender as a discourse (as power/knowledge); I've made no comments about any specific subjects exercising power within that discourse.mrussel1 said:
So you mean males have caused injustices. Maybe we should all just identify as female until the time of selection (whatever that means), and then 50% of the population could cross over. Pretty sure we'll still have war, bullying, power struggles, etc. But hey, those boys won't cause any wars in their first three years of life, so that's good.ecdanc said:
Historically, the power/knowledge of gender has justified and sustained an indescribable array of injustices and inequalities (what might broadly be called “patriarchy”).cincybearcat said:
So you say it's harmful and you saw better place without it. Please describe for me what you believe to be harmful about it and how the world would be better off without it.ecdanc said:
I consider it a discursive formation without which the world would be a better place.cincybearcat said:
Gender is harmful? Now that you mention it, it would be nice for you to explain what you mean.ecdanc said:
As I’ve said briefly elsewhere in this thread, I believe that gender is harmful, as such. I have not emphasized that part of our motivation for fear it will chafe those here with different views.mrussel1 said:
@ecdanc?mrussel1 said:
So here's where I get hung up... The metrics I have seen show that the number of trans is .6% of the population. There's probably an MOE in there, but still maybe 1% tops. It seems like a lot of effort and construction of your life for something that is very unlikely that they will identify with a gender different than their birth sex. And how do you know that there's no unintended consequences of that action, regarding the child's assimilation into the chosen gender? Perhaps they have trouble adapting and feel excluded in pre-K, etc.ecdanc said:
Good question. The goal is to minimize the extent which they have to “transition.” Transitioning is very often a traumatic process. If no one was assigned a gender at birth, no one would have to transition. Trying to come as close to that for P as we can.mcgruff10 said:I still don’t get the whole gender neutral thing. What is the purpose? Won’t a person transition either way?
As for your last sentence: I do what I can.
First, I specifically said patriarchy does rely upon gender, but is not coextensive with it. I'll try to be clearer. Gender is a broad discursive formation that operates in multiple forms across multiple times and spaces. Patriarchy--as I'm using it--is a specific set of power relations that has emerged (and endured) in one of those times and spaces. We need to get the relationship of these terms figured out before we move onto the other elements.
With risk of jumping the gun, however, I'll go ahead and say I'm not sure I understand the other point running through here. Gender exists as a discourse. In my perfect world, it would not. Therefore, I'm doing everything I can to resist the discourse from within it.
One last point: I may not have all the answers, but .6% of the world population is over 45 million people. I'd do a lot to make that many peoples' lives better.
Now my apologies, perhaps it's because I operate it in a financial world and we don't speak in the abstract. I worked in a heavily academic financial environment for about 10 years and it was essentially mental masturbation. You had reams of analysts and engineers flowing through with data sets where 1. they couldn't draw concrete conclusions or 2. what they were recommending was completely unable to be operational. I think my friend @benjs has suffered through this in his career as well.
Your 2nd paragraph seems to be a bit of a non sequitur, but I'm not one to pass up an opportunity: the world of finance is completely abstract.
And finance is not abstract in practice. You make analytically informed decisions, weigh the risk factors, and move forward. Otherwise you get nothing done and generate only expenses.
I'm gonna let the other part drop, because I'm not trying to pick that fight. I'd just say: maybe try not to be so dismissive of academic thought.
I'm happy to talk about what academia looks like now once you check yourself. Getting a bachelor's degree and claiming to know how academe works is like claiming I know how finance works because I have an IRA.
I'm hardly claiming to be an expert at academia - I'm saying that even to attain a Bachelor's degree, there were certain expectations for a debate which you've not met. I don't think I was unclear in stating that.'05 - TO, '06 - TO 1, '08 - NYC 1 & 2, '09 - TO, Chi 1 & 2, '10 - Buffalo, NYC 1 & 2, '11 - TO 1 & 2, Hamilton, '13 - Buffalo, Brooklyn 1 & 2, '15 - Global Citizen, '16 - TO 1 & 2, Chi 2
EV
Toronto Film Festival 9/11/2007, '08 - Toronto 1 & 2, '09 - Albany 1, '11 - Chicago 10 -
No. The story I tell of my coming to this point is not a positive one; I'm not bragging by telling it or suggesting others should do the same. It's the story of a shameful period when I was ignorant and, unfortunately, didn't have people in my life to call me out on my bullshit. Others' journey may take time--I get that--but that does not eliminate our responsibility to call them out on their bullshit during that journey.mickeyrat said:
be that as it may, an observation is , you dont seem willing to afford the rest of us the same room, but rather are pushing your regret off on us. its not fair. am fairly sure most will evolve on this subject to the positive. honestly some of your efforts here are standing in the way of that. I asdume your desire is for all of to arrive at similar thinking. Cut us a little slack. your journey took 15 yrs, dont expect ours to be overnightecdanc said:
It is a point I daily regret not reaching sooner.mickeyrat said:
it at least became something you could arrive at in your own tine. is that a generally fair statement?ecdanc said:
At first, very little. Super religious college. Later a bit more. Money struggles also had a big effect.mickeyrat said:
how much space did you have to evolve and grow to this current understanding?ecdanc said:
More like 15. In fits and starts.mickeyrat said:
6 or 7 yrs to get to this point for you then?ecdanc said:
Began in college. Picked up pace in grad school.mickeyrat said:ecdanc said:
I’m a high school dropout too! We’re already finding things we have in common.mickeyrat said:
I am a HS dropout(senior year no less) in 86. GED recipient in 95. Drunken Pot smoking crackhead (yes I am serious)Sober since 06. I drive a truck. And listen to a lot of stuff via audiobook. And despite some choices throughtout life, I consider myself fairly intelligent to a point.... also willing to admit when I am wrong or at least open to the eventuality.....ecdanc said:
My department is English, I’m an American literature specialist, whose primary research area is literature and American politics (esp. radical politics) from about 1880-1940s. I have a secondary research interest in Theory, and I publish on academic freedom and pedagogy.mickeyrat said:
area of focus in that realm?ecdanc said:
Good memory!dignin said:
If I remember correctly, a scholar in humanities.mrussel1 said:
I'm at work, on conference calls and doing 20 other things. This is filler for me because I need constant stimulation. You never said you were a scholar in another field. You said you weren't a philosophy scholar. Sorry that I made such a wild leap.ecdanc said:
Nothing was "implied"--you're just not a very attentive reader.mrussel1 said:
Hit expand and see my bold.. you said you weren't a scholar, but sorry I didn't read it to some implied point that you weren't a scholar on a particular topic.ecdanc said:
I never said I'm not a scholar. Man, read what I actually say. I've pointed out areas in which I'm not a scholar--that's not the same thing as "I'm not a scholar." I'm a tenured professor with an active research agenda, fwiw.mrussel1 said:
There's a time and place for pontificating. I said that multiple times. My world is not that place. I'm not treating your job dismissively in the least. I don't even know what it is. You say you're in academia but not a scholar. What does that mean? Are you a grad assistant? Are you an adjunct? Are you someone not expected to publish? So don't get all offended. I'm a big fan of academia. But like I said, when you're running a P&L, you have to make a call, usually with imperfect information.ecdanc said:What you call "mental masturbation," I call the advancement of knowledge. If I treated your job as dismissively as you're treating mind, you'd throw a fit.
And ffs, this is you trying not be dismissive? Do you know what the word "pontificating" means?!?!?
Regarding the 'pontificate', where I come from we don't use it as a disparaging term...it's just over the top pondering. We have our own definition.. like patriarchy.I find it easier to have discussions when there is ome degree of familiarity between those in the discussion.so how long was your evolution in thinking on this particular subject or at least the identity side of of it? not to suggest you have completed that evolution but surely as you described some of your upbringing, its been quite the transformation, albeit on in progress.
0 -
Not trying to encourage another person to pile on, so I'll keep this short: just go back and read my post. I explained from the outset that I was using patriarchy in a specific way--would you prefer I just create some new word? I'm using it how it is used by people who study it. I assume we're all glad doctors know more about the word "cancer" than what's in the dictionary (or how that word is "understood by almost everyone else"). This is no different.benjs said:
You spoke about what broadly would be considered as patriarchy. Broadly speaking, patriarchy isn't decoupled with some form of male-centrism. If your self/circle/industry has assigned a new meaning that is either different from, or disagrees with the one understood by almost everyone else, not much I can do about it.ecdanc said:
You're new to the conversation, so I'll cut you some slack: but the part I bolded is pure nonsense. Words operate differently in different discourses. I'm simply and directly telling you how I'm using the word, because that's how it's used in my discipline. Can I understand every word you use in your profession simply by looking at dictionary.com?benjs said:
You were unclear in the way you phrased your argument, threw in unnecessary prose, bastardized the definition of patriarchy to a non-dictionary definition that only you would know, made inaccurate claims about finance to a financial advisor, and then criticized said person of being dismissive of academic thought. In my experience in academia (Bachelor's in Structural Engineering), we debated based on a foundation of established facts and evidence. Have they changed that since I left?ecdanc said:
I was trying to be polite. When I said, "we need go get the relationship of these terms figured out..." i was trying to gently say "you're entirely misunderstanding what I'm saying." Being as generous as I could with your post, I was suggesting that you might have a point about the relationship between patriarchy and gender, but you needed to back up, because your point wasn't responding to what I actually said. So, let me ask, which part of the relationship between gender and patriarchy are you struggling with?mrussel1 said:
I asked the question. I'll type it again: What terms do we better need to understand the relationship until moving onto what elements? This is what I need to understand to understand what you are saying. You said "We need to get the relationship of these terms figured out before we onto the other elements". I'm asking what terms and what elements. Make that statement again, with more detail.ecdanc said:
Since you've tried to function as tone police a few times, I'm going to do the same for you: your inability to understand what I'm saying does not make what I'm saying meaningless. Just ask me about the parts/words you don't understand. I'm really trying to simplify things as much as I can, so help me help you.mrussel1 said:
I'm sorry, that first paragraph is meaningless. I read it six times and I can't draw any conclusion from it. All you're talking about is etymology. What terms do we better need to understand the relationship until moving onto what elements?ecdanc said:
I think there's two different things going on here:mrussel1 said:
So wait a minute.. "patriarchy" for your exceeds the traditional definition, and you are applying it to any/all genders. Yet your solution is not to assign a gender. So therefore, how can it be patriarchy or gender causing the issues? And logically following, how does not assigning the gender help the problem? This whole thing is circular reasoning. You point to gender, call out patriarchy, and then say it's not reliant upon gender. It all seems like an exercise in futility, to ease the transition of the .6%.ecdanc said:
Good point: I should clarify. The term "patriarchy"--in my discipline--exceeds/diverges from the etymological origins of the word. I intend "patriarchy" to refer to an historically specific set of power relations that relies upon, but is not coextensive with the discourse of gender.mrussel1 said:
You used the term patriarchy. How else would one interpret that comment than being an indictment of males for their injustice and inequalities. And for the record, you'll get no argument from me that men are the source of said ills in history. But I'm not sure how not identifying with a gender until the child decides will prevent the same from occurring.ecdanc said:
I think you're hearing what you want to hear. I've spoken only of gender as a discourse (as power/knowledge); I've made no comments about any specific subjects exercising power within that discourse.mrussel1 said:
So you mean males have caused injustices. Maybe we should all just identify as female until the time of selection (whatever that means), and then 50% of the population could cross over. Pretty sure we'll still have war, bullying, power struggles, etc. But hey, those boys won't cause any wars in their first three years of life, so that's good.ecdanc said:
Historically, the power/knowledge of gender has justified and sustained an indescribable array of injustices and inequalities (what might broadly be called “patriarchy”).cincybearcat said:
So you say it's harmful and you saw better place without it. Please describe for me what you believe to be harmful about it and how the world would be better off without it.ecdanc said:
I consider it a discursive formation without which the world would be a better place.cincybearcat said:
Gender is harmful? Now that you mention it, it would be nice for you to explain what you mean.ecdanc said:
As I’ve said briefly elsewhere in this thread, I believe that gender is harmful, as such. I have not emphasized that part of our motivation for fear it will chafe those here with different views.mrussel1 said:
@ecdanc?mrussel1 said:
So here's where I get hung up... The metrics I have seen show that the number of trans is .6% of the population. There's probably an MOE in there, but still maybe 1% tops. It seems like a lot of effort and construction of your life for something that is very unlikely that they will identify with a gender different than their birth sex. And how do you know that there's no unintended consequences of that action, regarding the child's assimilation into the chosen gender? Perhaps they have trouble adapting and feel excluded in pre-K, etc.ecdanc said:
Good question. The goal is to minimize the extent which they have to “transition.” Transitioning is very often a traumatic process. If no one was assigned a gender at birth, no one would have to transition. Trying to come as close to that for P as we can.mcgruff10 said:I still don’t get the whole gender neutral thing. What is the purpose? Won’t a person transition either way?
As for your last sentence: I do what I can.
First, I specifically said patriarchy does rely upon gender, but is not coextensive with it. I'll try to be clearer. Gender is a broad discursive formation that operates in multiple forms across multiple times and spaces. Patriarchy--as I'm using it--is a specific set of power relations that has emerged (and endured) in one of those times and spaces. We need to get the relationship of these terms figured out before we move onto the other elements.
With risk of jumping the gun, however, I'll go ahead and say I'm not sure I understand the other point running through here. Gender exists as a discourse. In my perfect world, it would not. Therefore, I'm doing everything I can to resist the discourse from within it.
One last point: I may not have all the answers, but .6% of the world population is over 45 million people. I'd do a lot to make that many peoples' lives better.
Now my apologies, perhaps it's because I operate it in a financial world and we don't speak in the abstract. I worked in a heavily academic financial environment for about 10 years and it was essentially mental masturbation. You had reams of analysts and engineers flowing through with data sets where 1. they couldn't draw concrete conclusions or 2. what they were recommending was completely unable to be operational. I think my friend @benjs has suffered through this in his career as well.
Your 2nd paragraph seems to be a bit of a non sequitur, but I'm not one to pass up an opportunity: the world of finance is completely abstract.
And finance is not abstract in practice. You make analytically informed decisions, weigh the risk factors, and move forward. Otherwise you get nothing done and generate only expenses.
I'm gonna let the other part drop, because I'm not trying to pick that fight. I'd just say: maybe try not to be so dismissive of academic thought.
I'm happy to talk about what academia looks like now once you check yourself. Getting a bachelor's degree and claiming to know how academe works is like claiming I know how finance works because I have an IRA.
I'm hardly claiming to be an expert at academia - I'm saying that even to attain a Bachelor's degree, there were certain expectations for a debate which you've not met. I don't think I was unclear in stating that.0 -
and it can be done respectfully. What YOU or anyone thinks is their intent is a distant second to the results of how its received. I think your results are pretty clear.ecdanc said:
No. The story I tell of my coming to this point is not a positive one; I'm not bragging by telling it or suggesting others should do the same. It's the story of a shameful period when I was ignorant and, unfortunately, didn't have people in my life to call me out on my bullshit. Others' journey may take time--I get that--but that does not eliminate our responsibility to call them out on their bullshit during that journey.mickeyrat said:
be that as it may, an observation is , you dont seem willing to afford the rest of us the same room, but rather are pushing your regret off on us. its not fair. am fairly sure most will evolve on this subject to the positive. honestly some of your efforts here are standing in the way of that. I asdume your desire is for all of to arrive at similar thinking. Cut us a little slack. your journey took 15 yrs, dont expect ours to be overnightecdanc said:
It is a point I daily regret not reaching sooner.mickeyrat said:
it at least became something you could arrive at in your own tine. is that a generally fair statement?ecdanc said:
At first, very little. Super religious college. Later a bit more. Money struggles also had a big effect.mickeyrat said:
how much space did you have to evolve and grow to this current understanding?ecdanc said:
More like 15. In fits and starts.mickeyrat said:
6 or 7 yrs to get to this point for you then?ecdanc said:
Began in college. Picked up pace in grad school.mickeyrat said:ecdanc said:
I’m a high school dropout too! We’re already finding things we have in common.mickeyrat said:
I am a HS dropout(senior year no less) in 86. GED recipient in 95. Drunken Pot smoking crackhead (yes I am serious)Sober since 06. I drive a truck. And listen to a lot of stuff via audiobook. And despite some choices throughtout life, I consider myself fairly intelligent to a point.... also willing to admit when I am wrong or at least open to the eventuality.....ecdanc said:
My department is English, I’m an American literature specialist, whose primary research area is literature and American politics (esp. radical politics) from about 1880-1940s. I have a secondary research interest in Theory, and I publish on academic freedom and pedagogy.mickeyrat said:
area of focus in that realm?ecdanc said:
Good memory!dignin said:
If I remember correctly, a scholar in humanities.mrussel1 said:
I'm at work, on conference calls and doing 20 other things. This is filler for me because I need constant stimulation. You never said you were a scholar in another field. You said you weren't a philosophy scholar. Sorry that I made such a wild leap.ecdanc said:
Nothing was "implied"--you're just not a very attentive reader.mrussel1 said:
Hit expand and see my bold.. you said you weren't a scholar, but sorry I didn't read it to some implied point that you weren't a scholar on a particular topic.ecdanc said:
I never said I'm not a scholar. Man, read what I actually say. I've pointed out areas in which I'm not a scholar--that's not the same thing as "I'm not a scholar." I'm a tenured professor with an active research agenda, fwiw.mrussel1 said:
There's a time and place for pontificating. I said that multiple times. My world is not that place. I'm not treating your job dismissively in the least. I don't even know what it is. You say you're in academia but not a scholar. What does that mean? Are you a grad assistant? Are you an adjunct? Are you someone not expected to publish? So don't get all offended. I'm a big fan of academia. But like I said, when you're running a P&L, you have to make a call, usually with imperfect information.ecdanc said:What you call "mental masturbation," I call the advancement of knowledge. If I treated your job as dismissively as you're treating mind, you'd throw a fit.
And ffs, this is you trying not be dismissive? Do you know what the word "pontificating" means?!?!?
Regarding the 'pontificate', where I come from we don't use it as a disparaging term...it's just over the top pondering. We have our own definition.. like patriarchy.I find it easier to have discussions when there is ome degree of familiarity between those in the discussion.so how long was your evolution in thinking on this particular subject or at least the identity side of of it? not to suggest you have completed that evolution but surely as you described some of your upbringing, its been quite the transformation, albeit on in progress.
_____________________________________SIGNATURE________________________________________________
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '140 -
I've seen no evidence that a different approach works with the people here.mickeyrat said:
and it can be done respectfully. What YOU or anyone thinks is their intent is a distant second to the results of how its received. I think your results are pretty clear.ecdanc said:
No. The story I tell of my coming to this point is not a positive one; I'm not bragging by telling it or suggesting others should do the same. It's the story of a shameful period when I was ignorant and, unfortunately, didn't have people in my life to call me out on my bullshit. Others' journey may take time--I get that--but that does not eliminate our responsibility to call them out on their bullshit during that journey.mickeyrat said:
be that as it may, an observation is , you dont seem willing to afford the rest of us the same room, but rather are pushing your regret off on us. its not fair. am fairly sure most will evolve on this subject to the positive. honestly some of your efforts here are standing in the way of that. I asdume your desire is for all of to arrive at similar thinking. Cut us a little slack. your journey took 15 yrs, dont expect ours to be overnightecdanc said:
It is a point I daily regret not reaching sooner.mickeyrat said:
it at least became something you could arrive at in your own tine. is that a generally fair statement?ecdanc said:
At first, very little. Super religious college. Later a bit more. Money struggles also had a big effect.mickeyrat said:
how much space did you have to evolve and grow to this current understanding?ecdanc said:
More like 15. In fits and starts.mickeyrat said:
6 or 7 yrs to get to this point for you then?ecdanc said:
Began in college. Picked up pace in grad school.mickeyrat said:ecdanc said:
I’m a high school dropout too! We’re already finding things we have in common.mickeyrat said:
I am a HS dropout(senior year no less) in 86. GED recipient in 95. Drunken Pot smoking crackhead (yes I am serious)Sober since 06. I drive a truck. And listen to a lot of stuff via audiobook. And despite some choices throughtout life, I consider myself fairly intelligent to a point.... also willing to admit when I am wrong or at least open to the eventuality.....ecdanc said:
My department is English, I’m an American literature specialist, whose primary research area is literature and American politics (esp. radical politics) from about 1880-1940s. I have a secondary research interest in Theory, and I publish on academic freedom and pedagogy.mickeyrat said:
area of focus in that realm?ecdanc said:
Good memory!dignin said:
If I remember correctly, a scholar in humanities.mrussel1 said:
I'm at work, on conference calls and doing 20 other things. This is filler for me because I need constant stimulation. You never said you were a scholar in another field. You said you weren't a philosophy scholar. Sorry that I made such a wild leap.ecdanc said:
Nothing was "implied"--you're just not a very attentive reader.mrussel1 said:
Hit expand and see my bold.. you said you weren't a scholar, but sorry I didn't read it to some implied point that you weren't a scholar on a particular topic.ecdanc said:
I never said I'm not a scholar. Man, read what I actually say. I've pointed out areas in which I'm not a scholar--that's not the same thing as "I'm not a scholar." I'm a tenured professor with an active research agenda, fwiw.mrussel1 said:
There's a time and place for pontificating. I said that multiple times. My world is not that place. I'm not treating your job dismissively in the least. I don't even know what it is. You say you're in academia but not a scholar. What does that mean? Are you a grad assistant? Are you an adjunct? Are you someone not expected to publish? So don't get all offended. I'm a big fan of academia. But like I said, when you're running a P&L, you have to make a call, usually with imperfect information.ecdanc said:What you call "mental masturbation," I call the advancement of knowledge. If I treated your job as dismissively as you're treating mind, you'd throw a fit.
And ffs, this is you trying not be dismissive? Do you know what the word "pontificating" means?!?!?
Regarding the 'pontificate', where I come from we don't use it as a disparaging term...it's just over the top pondering. We have our own definition.. like patriarchy.I find it easier to have discussions when there is ome degree of familiarity between those in the discussion.so how long was your evolution in thinking on this particular subject or at least the identity side of of it? not to suggest you have completed that evolution but surely as you described some of your upbringing, its been quite the transformation, albeit on in progress.0 -
Going to repost this here, since the issue of appropriate terminology is partly what derailed this thread. For those interested in an up-to-date look at the appropriate language to use when discussing trans people/issues, here you go: https://www.glaad.org/reference/transgender0
Categories
- All Categories
- 148.8K Pearl Jam's Music and Activism
- 110K The Porch
- 274 Vitalogy
- 35K Given To Fly (live)
- 3.5K Words and Music...Communication
- 39.1K Flea Market
- 39.1K Lost Dogs
- 58.7K Not Pearl Jam's Music
- 10.6K Musicians and Gearheads
- 29.1K Other Music
- 17.8K Poetry, Prose, Music & Art
- 1.1K The Art Wall
- 56.7K Non-Pearl Jam Discussion
- 22.2K A Moving Train
- 31.7K All Encompassing Trip
- 2.9K Technical Stuff and Help