Feminism and why it's bad.

When someone is trying to seriously make a case for Prostate cancer just being what you deserve for your "Privilege of having a penis" I think we can safely dismiss the use of it there as just self agrandizing douchebaggery. I think we can all agree the dude from that article was an asshat and his apology felt really unsincere.
 
Sure. That article was stupid as fuck. It's also four years old and gained zero traction because, well, it's stupid. No one's defending that bullshit.

But you made a much wider statement about the general use of privilege, to which I reacted.
 
But you can deny that the use of the word "Privileged" has become excedeengly dilluted as even people who are by all intents and propouses better off than 70% of the world will use it to diminish people who happen to be either male or white. Even tho accusing someone of being too privileged to speak properly about certain topics is appropiate, the rampant improper use of it shouldn't be ignored.
 
Sometimes it functions that way, but I generally don't see it used that way -- and when it is, there's always criticism and backlash precisely because that's not how privilege works. At least in my experience. The understanding of privilege as not a linear scale but a collection of axes is pretty widespread among those who actually unironically use the term.

Regardless, privilege is only one way to frame and understand these issues. Currently a widespread and dominant one, sure, but far from the only one.
 
"I assumed everyone had done the reading."
Hah.

Treating trigger warnings as standing in the way of therapeutically dealing with material is pretty messed up, though. You don't treat people without their consent, and you especially don't do so if you're not actually a therapist. College is not an extended therapy session.
 
College isn't a hug box either. I mean, from the look of it the very name of her class basically told people what topics would be discussed and people still signed up for that and demanded speacial treatment. If all you do is obsessively shield people from absolutely everything even to the detriment of the discussed topic you are just creating more coddled and spoiled people that won't be able to cope with the real world. Fuck I don't like being near live weapons or hearing shots because of personal trauma, I don't go to shooting ranges or hunting grounds and demand everyone run it through me whenever they want to shoot... I even respect people's right to own weapons as long as they aren't lunatics... Projecting your comfort over the rights of expression of others is just douchy.
 
No one's right to expression was curbed here, though. She didn't stop class. She didn't even alter class in any real way, nor the content she was treating. A few folks got upset, and that was about it. Big deal?
 
People actively tried to tell her to change her methodology, interrupted class and filled complaints about her class because of the contents upsetting them and it actively distorted the flow of the class, she even says so herself, having to continuosly give numerous warnings for everything and having to step on eggshells when dealing with the topics she would normally treat in more of a free form despite she herself being quite progressive. That isn't just "people getting upset". This is a compound problem that just gets worse the more coddled people become.
 
So you're saying a few students talked to a teacher about things they thought could be done differently, and then the teacher listened -- and the teacher had the option of not listening, too. No one forced her to do anything. There were no complaints lodged against her. Her bosses didn't speak to her. She wasn't reprimanded, nor did she face any consequences. Nothing escalated. So, yeah, a few people got upset at the content of a class. Big deal?

See: my rants above about people flying into a moral panic over some trivial bullshit.
 
You are very obviously and transparently diminishing thigns when it's convenient for your narrative. The article makes it clear the teacher was actually growing anxious and worried from the envirorment that has been created by this type of thing and feeling like the quality of her class was actually suffering. But ok, whatever, no biggie, it's just education, amirite?
 
Once again: nothing was changed about the actual content of the education the students were receiving. All that happened was that a few students complained about content, and the teacher added trigger warnings. That's it! Should those students maybe be a little more willing to engage with the material? Probably, but the classroom is also not a place of therapy so demanding that they just sit through it because it's "good for them" or whatever is also bullshit. They can participate or not at their leisure -- if they don't, they don't pass the class. Problem fucking solved. That's how it worked here, note.

All of this is a classic moral panic. It's not about what actually happened, which is some trivial bullshit, but about turning a few trivial incidents into some seemingly urgent attack on the culture at large.

Who gives a shit that a few students complained about content. Complaints about classes have happened for decades upon decades. As long as teachers aren't forced to change the actual content of their classes, there's no actual problem here. Just a lot of whining about the perceived differences of young people these days.
 
It's more about how way too many young people grow up basically incapable of handling life, and people like you actively encouraging them in that.
"Nothing happened, all is fine, grown adults ran out of class crying because they were talking about a movie scene and it's all good, nothing wrong with that."
Sorry, no. These people don't belong at a university, at least not until they learned to deal with their issues.
I guess the good thing is that they tend to stick to the useless courses anyway, so who cares...
 
Hassknecht said:
It's more about how way too many young people grow up basically incapable of handling life, and people like you actively encouraging them in that.
Click to expand...
As I said: "Just a lot of whining about the perceived differences of young people these days."

Also, perceived. All this stuff is based on a handful of out-of-context incidents with no consequences spaced out over two decades and the rise of the discourse of trigger warnings. Which do not ask for anyone to actually adjust the content of what they're teaching. Again: moral panic over shit that isn't actually all that impactful.

There's this underlying notion that previously, people who were traumatized would just sit through this shit and be fine, but we know that trauma and other mental issues prevent a lot of people from participating and completing their education. Perhaps what we're seeing is not people being a lot more sensitive and coddled, but more willing to stand up for themselves.
Yet your answer is to exclude people dealing with mental issues from education completely. That's a pretty harmful response.
 
Sander said:
Yet your answer is to exclude people dealing with mental issues from education completely. That's a pretty harmful response.
Click to expand...
That's of course not what I'm saying at all, although you'd probably like it to be because it fits your narrative of me.
I explicitly said that they should not go to university (to study potentially "harmful" subjects, at least) until they dealt with their issues in a way that lets them survive in basic society.
 
No, nobody is saying they should be excluded from education, but if they can't deal with sensitive topics they probably shouldn't be engaging in classes that are about those sensitive topics. Colleges also tend to have support groups for people dealing with all types of traumas, but if you are suddenly gonna bring your bagagge to disrupt class and negatively impact the quality of the course you probably shouldn't be in that class to begin with.... Colleges als oallow you to cancel courses so it's not like anybody is being forced to take them....
 
Christian fundamentalists probably also shouldn't attend a course on evolutionary biology if all they do is scream about how wrong everything is.
Or some atheist probably shouldn't attend a fundie college if all he'd be doing is insult all the silly little christians there.
Note that I'm not advocating expulsion or banning people from anything, I'm advocating something far worse: Personal responsibility.
Not everyone can do everything immediately. Sometimes people have to work for being able to do something, and that includes attending lectures with potentially "harmful" content.
 
That's exactly what's happening already, though. Students can't handle a class, then they can leave and not participate. No one's giving them a pass. Teachers are already given leeway to exclude disruptive students. Trigger warnings are only there to warn them and allow them to decide whether they can participate and prepare for it if they think they can, that's it.

Hassknecht said:
That's of course not what I'm saying at all, although you'd probably like it to be because it fits your narrative of me.
I explicitly said that they should not go to university (to study potentially "harmful" subjects, at least) until they dealt with their issues in a way that lets them survive in basic society.
Click to expand...
Right, you're not excluding them, just saying they shouldn't be there. I'm not sure I quite appreciate that distinction.

Also the implication that they can't "survive in basic society" is unwarranted. One reaction in a class setting does not translate to a reaction in the rest of the world.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top