“All the stupidity and the arbitrariness of the laws, all the pain of the initiations, the whole perverse apparatus of repression and education, the red-hot irons, and the atrocious procedures have only this meaning: to discipline man, to mark him in his flesh, to render him capable of alliance, to form him within the debtor-creditor relation, which on both sides turns out to be a matter of memory - a memory straining toward the future”—Gilles Deleuze and Felix Guattari, Anti-Oedipus p. 207-208 (via tiredshoes)
“Matriarchy is no less heterosexual than patriarchy: it is only the sex of the oppressor that changes. Furthermore, not only is this conception still imprisoned in the categories of sex (woman and man), but it holds onto the idea that the capacity to give birth (biology) is what defines a woman. Although practical facts and ways of living contradict this theory in lesbian society, there are lesbians who affirm that “women and men are different species or races (the words are used interchangeably): men are biologically inferior to women; male violence is a biological inevitability…” By doing this, by admitting that there is a “natural” division between women and men, we naturalize history, we assume that “men” and “women” have always existed and will always exist. Not only do we naturalize history, but also consequently we naturalize the social phenomena which express our oppression, making change impossible.”—Monique Wittig, One is Not Born A Woman (via heteroglossia)
“The artist is a symptomologist. The world can be treated as a symptom and searched for signs of disease, signs of life, signs of a cure, signs of health. Nietzsche thought of the philosopher as the physician of civilization. Henry Miller was an extraordinary diagnostician. The artist in general must treat the world like a symptom, and build his work not like a therapeutic, but in every case like a clinic. The artist is not outside the symptoms, but makes a work of art from them, which sometimes serves to precipitate them, and sometimes to transform them.”—Gilles Deleuze, as quoted in Joshua Ramey’s The Hermetic Deleuze: Philosophy and Spiritual Ordeal (via heteroglossia)
“[There] is…[a] link which exists between pain and the voice of reason: reason represents the inanity of moral pain (saying: time will erase pain—as when we must give up a loved one). The wound is there, present, dreadful and contesting reason, recognizing its own solid grounds, but only seeing in this one more horror. I don’t suffer any less from a wound, if I sense that it will soon be healed.”—Bataille, Inner Experience (via tiredshoes)
“their usual line of defense is to say, ‘You atheists, you cannot really understand what is a religious experience.’ But how do they know what is an atheist experience? I am almost tempted to claim that it is more natural for us to believe. To be an atheist, my God, is a very difficult thing.”—Slavoj Zizek (via alterities)
I have yet to receive an actual answer on this question from any feminist; why do you need to focus on women? There IS sexism against men. Ask a loving father who gave up his daughter to a neglecting mother because "women make better parents". Or how about men who can't jokingly make fun of a friend who is a girl because, from my friend's mouth, "he's a guy, guys can't say stuff like that to girls but we can say it to them". Why can't we just have equalism? Where we focus on EVERYONE not one.
I was going to delete this but then I thought that given how nice and educational I’m feeling, today’s the one and only day when I will answer basic shit like this.
The reason no one has answered your bullshit question is because most of us have evolved far beyond the level of feminism where we’re all about being nice and educating people who are unwilling to learn. If you gave a single fuck about the answer to this question, you would have already done your research. Putting minimal effort into researching would have taught you that women are systematically discriminated against and oppressed by men, that no, sexism against men doesn’t actually exist, and that giving an equal amount of attention to the oppressors as we do to the oppressed changes exactly nothing.
Regarding what your friend said, I’m assuming that what you failed to specify was that the jokes in question were misogynistic and not just playful teasing between friends, in which case they’re absolutely right. There is a huge difference between making fun of the oppressors (i.e. men, if that’s not already clear enough) and making fun of the oppressed. Jokes that make women the punchline aren’t jokes, because they perpetuate a systemic oppression that has been in place for centuries. They are harmful because they reinforce an existing misogynistic mindset. “Misandry” jokes are reactionary. They are an act of resistance. And unlike misogynistic jokes, they are just words that will never cause violence or oppression of any kind. Note how strange it is that 99% of the time it’s only jokes against the oppressors that illicit a response from anyone. When people make fun of the oppressed, that’s still passed off as just a joke.
So no, we can’t have “equalism” and focus on everyone equally. Women face a whole slew of issues that men don’t even realize exist. If you take an inequality and add the same constant to both sides, it remains an inequality. Feminism is necessary and must absolutely prioritize women if we aim to change that.
Next time feel free to go through my feminism tag and Google some stuff before you waste my time with questions that have already been answered a million times.
“The reassuring lesson of fantasy is that “I was brought about with a special purpose”. At the end of psychoanalytic treatment, instead of being bothered of what I am for the others, I fully assume the uttermost contingency of my being. The subject becomes ‘cause of itself’ in the sense of no longer looking for a guarantee of his or her existence in another’s desire.”—http://zizek.livejournal.com/2266.html (via jujutsu-with-zizek)
“Philosophy becomes tortured thinking. Thinking that devours itself—and continues intact and even flourishes, in spite (or perhaps because) of the repeated acts of self-cannibalism. In the passion play of thought, the thinker plays the roles of both protagonist and antagonist. He is both suffering Prometheus and the remorseless eagle who consumes his perpetually regenerated entrails.”—Susan Sontag, from “Thinking Against Oneself: Reflections on Cioran” (via blackestdespondency)
i don’t understand the constant conflation of calling out people, particularly women, with attacking them on the basis of their appearance, thus reinforcing misogynistic beauty ideals. madonna and lena dunham, for instance (to be topical) have both lead careers marked by racism….