Jump to content

azmax3

Member
  • Content Count

    35
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

12 Good

About azmax3

  • Rank
    Registered User
  • Birthday 11/02/1981
  1. I once read this card that said that life was "magical" in that the way we thought about it shaped the way it is. There was an example (from I believe catherine mackinnon) in the card of thinking of womyn as x and them becoming that...it might have related to thousand plateaus
  2. It seems to me as if it is the louisville style of debate has the 3 parts of a K mixed together. The entire style seems to be an alternative, and throughout their debating style they outline links (problems with the system) and impacts (i.e. the racist implications of common debate practices). I don't think that makes it any worse than anything else, in fact i think it's better.
  3. azmax3

    Mao K

    If anyone has that file, can they send it to me too. Thanks
  4. Except for Evak, he can actually help. I think he has enough on his hands at this moment though.
  5. Lolz, I can't help you with that, I just KNOW that almost every single persyn that will respond to this will do so in a dickish manner.
  6. The 3rd World by Immortal Technique. "CUZ THEY DONT' CONTROL THE ECONOMY STOOPID!"
  7. azmax3

    Flobots

    Yeah, it is awesome, and because of that i'll be there too. Nas and talib kweli came recently to austin though and that was soooo amazing too.
  8. I'm in dire need of a securitization bad impact card. Please help.
  9. Oh yeah, lastly, sunmakesmesneeze: No. You aren't advocating what Max said at all. I am pretty sure max doesn't think that womyn should stay at home and cook just because they can give birth.
  10. Max (my name's max too): Thanks for responding to my argument substantively. However, I don't think what you're saying is true, necessarily. Lorber criticizes that type of logic that "men" and "women" are the two universal categories" because of biological (I don't know why/how there should be/are cultural ones) , she writes: Neither sex nor gender are pure categories. Combinations of incongruous genes, genitalia, and hormonal input are ignored in sex categorization, just as combinations of incongruous physiology, identity, sexuality, appearance, and bechavior are ingored in the social construction of gender statuses. menstruation, lactation, and gestation do not demarcate women from men. Only some women are pregnant and then only some of the time; some women do not have a uterus or ovaries. Soem women have stopped menstruating temporarily, others have reached menopause, and some have had hysterectomies. Some women breastfeed some of the time but some men lactate (Jaggar 1983, 165fn). Menstruation, lactation, and gestation are individual experiences of womanhood (Levesque-Lopman 1988), but not determinants of the social category "women", or even "female." Similitarly, "men" are not always sperm-producers, and in fact, not all sperm producers are men. A male-to-female transsexual, prior to surgery, can be socially a woman, though still potentially (or actually) capable of permatogenesesis" (Kessler and McKenna [1978] 1985, 2). As such, it does make your statement sexist in that you are naming these two categories that people can be and saying that a "womyn" is someone that gives birth, because that is not true of all womyn and instead excludes some. Another danger is that essentializing womyn like this allows for a stable conception of the woman which is can thus be made inferior and oppressed. When we give these biological differentiations and make them absolute, we justify construing them into having social consequences. Lorber concludes: Until the eighteenth century, Western philosophers, and scientists thought that there was one sex and that twomen's internal genitalia were the inverse of men's external genitalia: the womb and vagina were the penis and scrotum turned inside out (Laqueur 1990). Current Western thinking sees women and men as so different physically as to sometimes be two species. The bodies, which have been mapped inside and out for hundreds of years, have not changed. What has changed are the justifications for gender inequality. When the social position of all human beings was believed to be set by natural law or was considered God-given, biology was irrelevant; women and men of different classes all had their assigned places. When scientists began to question the divine basis of social order and replaced faith with empirical knowledge, what they saw was that women were very different from men in that they had wombs and menstruated. Such anatomical differences destined the for an entirely different social life from men. In actuality, the basic bodily material is the same for females and males, and except for procreative hormones and organs, female and male human beings ahve similar bodies (Naftolin and Butz 1981). Furthermore, as has been known since the middle of the nineteenth century, male and female genitalia develop from the same fetal tissue, and so infants can be born with ambiguous genitalia (Money and Ehrhardt 1972). When they are, biology is used quite arbitrarily in sex assignment. Suzzane kessler (1990) interviewed six medial specialists in pediatric intersexuality and found that whether an infant with XY chrosmosomes and anomalous genitalia was categorized as a boy or a girl depended on the size of the penis - if a penis was very small, the child was categorized as a girl, and sex-change surgery was used to make an artificial vagina. In the late nineteenth century, the presence or absence of ovaries was the determining criterion of gender assignment for hermaphrodites because a woman who could not procreate was not a complete woman (Kessler 1990, 20). Yet in Western societies, we see two discrete sexes and two distinguishable genders because our society is built on two classes of people, "women" and "men." Once the gender cateogry is given, the attributes of the person are also gendered: Whatever a "woman" is has to be 'female"; whatever a "man" is has to be "male." Analyzing the soial proceses that construct the categories we call "female and male," "women and men," and "homosexual and heterosexual" uncovers the ideology and pwer differentials congealed in these categories (Foucault 1978)...I am arguing that bodies differ in many ways physiologically, but they are completely transformed by social practices to fit into the salient categories of a society, the most pervasive of which are "female" and "male" and "women" and "men." Sevvdog, here's that school of thought you wanted. Need more consult japan: What? How do I trivialize the movement? Audit: What do you advocate?
  11. The first thing that I would like to say is that everyone in this forum not advocating womyn equality DISGUST ME. This forum was the fucking funniest thing I had read in a while, because it was soooo ridiculous. The first thing I would like to bring up is the issue of whether or not debate should be used to advocate things that we believe are true as opposed to those that win us rounds. Although I am strongly on the side of debate being an activity that should be used to develop our own senses of the world and to have our viewpoints interact with others, it's fine if you do it to win. In fact, one of my best friends on the circuit does it to win. There is just one caveat to that, and that is when you use debate as an "imaginary" world where you don't have to be accountable for what you say, and exploit that to run things you deep down do believe, like womyn oppression good. However, it is still sad to irrationally exclude other types and forms of debate simply because you have the need to feel your's is the best. However, that's not what I want to focus on. The rest of what I would like to focus on is the horrendous appropriation of feminism you all (being all those except msschristinex and a few others) have attempted. Feminism is not a singular school of thought we can just pin down and say "oh, there it is, there's feminism," except for in the very broadest senses, being that to stop sexual exploitation and gender inequalities. There have been multiple waves, different identities attached to it (i.e. black feminism), and different geographical regions (3rd world feminism), among others. This surely takes out you're horribly out of place card sunmakesmesneeze, the califia one, BECAUSE ALL THAT TALKS ABOUT IS FEMINIST "FUNDAMENTALISM" AND "ESSENTIALISATION". This does not have to be what feminism, is, which what I'll get to in a second, but on the contrary absolutely "turns" your entire argument in that YOU are the one in favor of seeing womyn as BIOLOGICALLY inferior to men, or if not, in other ways. For instance, essentializing them as those that should cook. That is exactly what califia criticizes. Moreover, you're also wrong in saying that "feminism" wants to become the dominant sex or that it wants to have gender equality (msschristinex this is also where you're wrong in that that presumes that we still have gender categories). For instance, one school of feminism realizes that, as Judith Lorber writes: Most people, however, voluntariy go along with their society's prescriptions for those of their gender status because the norms and expectations get built into their sense of worth and identity as a certain kind of human being and becasue they believe their society's way is the antural way. these beliefs emerge from the imagery that pervades the way we think, the way we see and hear and speak, the way we fantasize, and the way we feel. There is no core or bedrock human nature below these endlessly looping processes of the social production of sex and gender, self and other, identity and psyche, each of us is a "complex cultrual construction" (Butler 1990, 36). The paradox of "human nature" is that it is always a manifestation of cultural meanings, social relationships, and power politics - "not biology, but culture, becomes destiny" (Butler 1990, 8). That sets up the alternative of deconstruction that is suggested. This entails confusing and forgetting, questioning, the social constructions of gender. This is made possible by their very own social construction, and literally because of viewers like you (creating this). This can sometimes be advocated in the form of cross dressers or transgenders (also falsifying your arugment that feminism never takes those things into account), or simply questioning the categories of male and female, penis and vagina. Judith Lorber concludes this, Feminist inquiry has long questioned the conventional categories of social sceince, but much of the current work in feminist sociology has not gone beyond adding the universal category "women" to the universal category "men." Our current debates over the global assumptions of only two categories and the insistence that they must be nuanced to include race and class are steps in the direction that I would like to see feminist research go, but race and class are also global categories (collins 1990 Spelman 1988). Deconstructing sex, sexuality, and gender reveals many possible categories embedded in the social experiences and social practices of what Dorothy Smith calls the "everyday/everynight world" (1990, 31-57). These emergent categories group some poeple together for comparison with other poeple without prior assumptions about who is liek whom. Categories can be broken up and poeple regrouped differently into new categories for comparison. This procss of discovering categories from simiitarieis and differences in poeple's behavior or responses can be more meaningful for feminist research than discovering similitarities and differences between "females" and "males" or "women" and "men" becaue the social construction of the conventional sex and gender categories already assumes differences between them and similarities among them. When we rely only on the conventional categories of sex and gender, we end up finding what we looked for - we see what we believe, whether it is that "females" and "males" are essentially different or that 'women and "men" are essentially the same. Lolz, I guess that this forum does this (confuses gender categories) in that me, a man is advocating and end to womyn oppression and a womyn wants it to continue (you). As for the discussion on whether there should be gender oppression, I cannot believe I am even TALKING ABOUT THIS. Regardless, i believe that msschristinex was right when she said that you can still have your identities as someone that cooks dinner because she's a womyn without having these categories imposed upon EVERYONE. We should, and this subsumes all your arguments, not have gender oppression or roles, because that allows for people to choose what they want to do as opposed to being forced into categories.
  12. I don't know if this is exactly calculative logic. Calculative logic is a process of an external authority placing some value upon you, whereas the Heideggerian thought that you outlined seems to be more of an internal thing of a persyn ending up as "a hollow machine" because we try to be efficient as possible and we see that as "our destiny, as the way humyns should live always." I also don't think that the impact you outlined of "seeing ourselves as hollow machines" is specific to reaching a zero value, because that is a value to life that we think, as in we view ourselves as hollow machines. Calculative logic would set up that the zero value to life can also be imposed upon a we in the form of devaluation. For instance, I could be wrong, however it was not the Gypsies, Jews, etc. viewing themselves as "ticks" that led to the Nazi Genocide, but rather the Aryan race seeing them as such. All of that was brought about through the ability of that regime to value people, and thus they were justified in denationalizing them and also saying that they were not needed to produce peace, internal stability, and wealth in the German state, and as such their value was gone so they could be exterminated. Moreover, another form of calculative logic that the Nazi Genocide also embodied was that of utilitarianism (i.e. if we, as the Nazi party, can kill all these people, then more will be saved (the rest of Germany)). If Heidegger does, however, talk about this as I have tried to outline it, are there any specific books/articles by him or disciples of him that you would recommend? Also, shae, you're wrong on that one because in the footnotes that are specific to the Dillon in 99 card he outlines certain references to calculative logic, and although those included Ian Hacking's The Taming of Chance (how population statistics came around) and The Foucault Effect, he doesn't mention Heidegger.
  13. Hello everyone, I was wondering if anyone has ever hit a kritik that indicts reducing humyns to objects of calculation. It seems as if this links hard into a lot of policy debate rounds through the weighing calculus they try to set up (i.e. fine, I kill 1 million people, but that's not as bad as if we didn't do the plan and killed 6 billion). Regardless, I believe the criticism is that once we put some price on humyns, they can be devalued just as easily. For instance, in an economic sense, if someone was worth 20 stitched baseballs an hour, if the company decided to no longer manufacture baseballs, they would then be devalued and layed off even if this might mean they will starve. However, I believe that this also takes place on a larger scale with the state. If you are valued as 1 political unit, not only can you be killed if the political equation works out correctly, but you can also be devalued into a 0. For example, the Nazi government was allowed to turn Gypsies, Jews, homosexuals, and others into 0s who's extermination didn't matter. This derived from their ability to count a German citizen as a 1, as some unit incorporated into the political realm. I believe that this might have strong relations and possibly overlappings with biopower, but I believe it is different or at the very least a narrow form of it. I would just like to open up the discussion with the question of whether you think this is a bad thing, and ought not be done. I persynally think that this is can be a bad thing, although i see utilitarianism as the best form of calculus available to us. I simply don't see an alternative that could be embraced in the real world that would allow for us to take action (that is to say, wouldn't paralyze actions), and could be taken up by different actors (a lot of alternatives (like seeing life as infinitely valuable, seem to me to translate into something unrealistic (in the sense that it would be too utopian to have any value to discussing it) , like an alternative of "don't kill").
  14. Hello everyone, I was wondering if anyone has ever hit a kritik that indicts reducing humyns to objects of calculation. It seems as if this links hard into a lot of policy debate rounds through the weighing calculus they try to set up (i.e. fine, I kill 1 million people, but that's not as bad as if we didn't do the plan and killed 6 billion). Regardless, I believe the criticism is that once we put some price on humyns, they can be devalued just as easily. For instance, in an economic sense, if someone was worth 20 stitched baseballs an hour, if the company decided to no longer manufacture baseballs, they would then be devalued and layed off even if this might mean they will starve. However, I believe that this also takes place on a larger scale with the state. If you are valued as 1 political unit, not only can you be killed if the political equation works out correctly, but you can also be devalued into a 0. For example, the Nazi government was allowed to turn Gypsies, Jews, homosexuals, and others into 0s who's extermination didn't matter. This derived from their ability to count a German citizen as a 1, as some unit incorporated into the political realm. I believe that this might have strong relations and possibly overlappings with biopower, but I believe it is different or at the very least a narrow form of it. I would just like to open up the discussion with the question of whether you think this is a bad thing, and ought not be done. I persynally think that this is can be a bad thing, although i see utilitarianism as the best form of calculus available to us. I simply don't see an alternative that could be embraced in the real world that would allow for us to take action (that is to say, wouldn't paralyze actions), and could be taken up by different actors (a lot of alternatives (like seeing life as infinitely valuable, seem to me to translate into something unrealistic (in the sense that it would be too utopian to have any value to discussing it) , like an alternative of "don't kill").
  15. Can you pm me too? or email at azmax3@gmail.com Thanks
×
×
  • Create New...