|
Lucienne -> RE: Forced Masculinity, Take 2 (1/21/2010 4:57:31 PM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Psychonaut23
quote:
ORIGINAL: Lucienne
No. You really aren't well read. Having taken a few women's studies courses that analyzed the western canon is not the same thing as being well read in western literature. And standing on the shoulders of giants should leave you cold.
I'm not going to argue this with you, as its infantile and pointless. I am very well read, and standing on the shoulders of giants (i.e. having an education) should not "leave one cold." You're just arguing to argue, but if we were to actually break down what you're saying, you'd look like an idiot. So just drop it.
Yeah... I'm familiar with the expression. "leave you cold" wasn't an argument, it was an REM reference. I like to drop these nuggets for those of similar tastes and experiences. It a good song. And a slightly more coherent argument than yours.
Click here to see Michael Stipe with hair on his head!
quote:
The implication of this argument is that a person can only be knowledgeable and discuss western literature if one has read all of it. Except that it is impossible to read all of it. Even the most proficient reader devoting their entire life to reading would make a scarce dent in the sheer volume of work that qualifies as western literature.
I think the point of the argument was that you, yes you, should not make sweeping statements about representations of femininity in the entire western canon if you haven't even read Jane Motherfucking Austen. You made the broad statement. And your supporting examples were Disney princesses and an Alicia Silverstone movie. Your entire commentary at that point was odd. About literature lacking truly feminine characters. And then they only played minor roles. As opposed to having a shortage of fully realized female characters, which is kind of a Women's Studies for Dummies point.
And it's not that you can't discuss western literature. It's that you should, I know this will hurt, but you really should display some humility in the face of your own ignorance. Understand that someone who's read Austen, Dickens, Balzac, Tolstoy, etc. might have a richer reading experience than you to draw from in the discussion and that your comments come across as reductive. Your whole attitude of "if you don't agree with me, you must be an idiot" is really comical. Not giants, dude. Holiday. Inn. Express.
quote:
I have not read Jane Austen specifically. That's one author. That does not mean I haven't read extensively, haven't read many of the classics, etc. It just means I haven't read Jane Austen.
Disney princesses and Alicia Silverstone. These were your examples. The suggestion that maybe we should look at Jane Austen was just icing on the cake of absurdity. One needn't have read Austen to have an opinion on the original question. But if you're trying to wax authoritative on the western canon, I would hope that you could point to one actual work in that canon that you have read that supports your point. One book. One poem. Anything would've been better than that line about how you haven't read any Austen, or seen any of the films, but Clueless (based on Emma for those who didn't know!) had a very feminine character. As you've noted, there are an enormous number of works to choose from. It shouldn't be that difficult.
quote:
You and Lucienne are both engaging in a really cheap trick. You're attacking my ability to make any sort of claims, but where does your knowledge come from? What are your credentials? The two of you both sound like morons to me, with your attacks on education.
It's not a cheap trick at all. It's taken me a great deal of time and money to achieve my current level of education, formal and informal. It only sounds like an attack on education to you because you are blissfully unaware of your inferior position in this regard. I don't know how many times I have to laugh at your Criminal Justice... studies... and your pathetic attempt to bolster your credibility with your SAT scores for you to catch on to the horrific possibility that I might know things, worth knowing, that you don't already know.
I don't state my credentials and tell people to shut up. I'm not trying to argue from personal authority. I'm not interested in posting my C.V. because that would be a cheap trick. I'm perfectly capable of intimidating people in the moment, I don't need to start flashing credentials. Some would say it's a very masculine trait of mine. People's survival instincts seem to serve them well when it comes to fucking with me. They don't need to see my transcript.
quote:
I don't believe the opinion of experts are the Truth. I assume they are the opinions of experts. I don't, as a general rule, dismiss the opinions of experts out of hand. I guess that makes me a "psuedo-intellectual."
In this case, it makes you someone who made a very weak argument from authority. Relying on experts isn't inherently bad or good, and we all do it to some degree or another. Presenting whatever nameless JUCO hack that taught you Gender Studies as an authority on the western canon was... optimistic on your part.
quote:
But what are you? An anti-intellecual? A moron? An idiot? Or are you going to claim to be an expert above all other experts, claim that you've done the impossible?
Speaking only for myself, I'm a person who has been known to indulge in intellectual snobbery when confronted with a poseur. Everyone on earth knows one thing or another that I don't know. I can learn something from just about any person that I encounter. To assume that people who have less formal education than me have nothing to teach me is to deprive myself of a wealth of information about the world. I'm far from an intellectual snob in general, although some people defensively assume otherwise. So, please understand, that when I condescend to you it's not because I think you have nothing interesting to say. I'm doing it to demonstrate how it is properly done.
{this post brought to you for the amusement of my friend at Disneyworld. I argue for the sake of entertainment, not arguing}
|
|
|
|
