Women, Gender, and Sexuality Studies

Legitimacy is an illusion constructed by the weak. Maybe you should have studied realpolitik before you chose the losing side.

>Legitimacy is an illusion constructed by the weak.
Really? I thought it was a consequence of the mighty making their own right.
>Maybe you should have studied realpolitik before you chose the losing side.
Maybe you don't have any idea what you're talking about.

I'm not talking about the legitimacy of states, I'm talking about the legitimacy of scholarly disciplines. In contemporary academic discourse, is astrology a legitimate discipline? Is alchemy? No, they aren't. But for some reason, women, gender, and sexuality studies is recognized as being legitimate. I want to know why; it seems like a purely political practice, designed to give certain segments of the population a circle in which they can theorize about forwarding their own political agenda.
Is this a legitimate use of educational resources? Or is it a waste? And is the methodology valid? The subject is certainly noteworthy; but what does the discipline do?

Nobody can fucking answer that last question.

If women can do anything men can do, how come they couldn't oppress an entire gender?

How is any subject in humanities a legitimate field of study?

>I'm not talking about the legitimacy of philosophy, I'm talking about the legitimacy of scholarly disciplines. In contemporary academic discourse, is Platonism a legitimate discipline? Is Aristotlean physics? No, they aren't. But for some reason, Plato, Aristotle, and Kierkegaard are recognized as being legitimate. I want to know why; it seems like a purely political practice, designed to give certain segments of the population a circle in which they can theorize about forwarding their own political agenda.

To think how far humanity could have advanced if we didn't wastefully study unprovable methodologies! The subject is certainly noteworthy; but what does the discipline do?

Women, gender, sexuality studies =/= everything that studies women, gender and sexuality

what do you think they are doing right now?

STEMfaggots are to autistic to desire world control outside of Swedish DLC simulators

Could you explain why you believe that women, gender and sexuality studies may not be a legitimate field of study? That way people will have something to respond to and it would allow an actual argument to happen rather than shitposting.

>is this a legitimate use of education resources
I guess that depends on who you ask.
>Is the methodology valid
It varies from academic to academic. Some borrow quantitative methods from the other social sciences and use them. How appropriately their data are used varies from academic to academic as well, as in all social sciences. Other academics do theory, which is more philosophy based.
>What does the discipline do?
Well, that is pretty broad. As far as methodology, I've explained it above. If you wanted to look at what questions the discipline asks, you would be better off browsing through a book like the link below rather than a ~1000 character Veeky Forums post.

imd.inder.cu/adjuntos/article/329/50_Key_Concepts_in_Gender_Studies.pdf

This is ridiculous
Philosophy didn't begin as an academic discipline and it isn't confined to universities
This isn't an argument

then what's the point?

it's not

>and it isn't confined to universities
Says who? Your thought catalog page?

History is necessary

It shouldn't be in universities at all. It's the intellectual equivalent of navel-gazing.

Yet Platonists (though they call them "professors" nowadays) ceaselessly insist that "the humanities" (as if you can't be human without their study!) are absolutely vital to education. If you want to study philosophy, go to a private school. Keep it out of respectable public institutions where actual fields can thrive, and keep it away from our dwindling tax dollars.

Yeah its incredibly important to teach children to feel guilty for WWII instead of teaching them science.
History is a hobby and an instrument to push unobjective agendas and points of views.

Somebody somewhere began to argue that social science was just a coded system for arguing about society thus requiering no actual empirics.

>Could you explain why you believe that women, gender and sexuality studies may not be a legitimate field of study?
Where in the OP do I imply that I don't thin it is? I'm fully willing to accept that it is if someone can make a compelling argument. I'm simply asking a question.
>I guess that depends on who you ask.
I'm asking you, so how about you give me an answer?
>How appropriately their data are used varies from academic to academic as well, as in all social sciences. Other academics do theory, which is more philosophy based.
Why does this field exist distinctly from sociology, philosophy, or history, then?
>f you wanted to look at what questions the discipline asks, you would be better off browsing through a book like the link below rather than a ~1000 character Veeky Forums post.
Or you could give me an answer; I'm more interested in discussion than in eliminating gender studies.
Says the existence of people like Socrates and every philosopher who lived before the founding of Plato's Academy. Says the presence of philosophical concepts in legal codes and cultural artifacts.
The burden of proof is on you to show that philosophy is in fact a purely academic discipline concerned primarily with methodology.
>teach children
lol
Who were they? Where?

lol what? teaching is all historians can do with their lives, they either teach children or teach people who will teach children.

If you think academia is primarily about teaching, you have a lot to learn. Research is more important.
Have you ever studied history seriously?

What a garbage post. Are you congenitally unable to take a stand, or was it learned over years of neglect?

How do you study history seriously? I studied international relationships before studying medicine, I was completely turn off the humanities, its all agenda pushing mental masturbation.

yeah you're retarded

>Are you congenitally unable to take a stand, or was it learned over years of neglect?
This doesn't look anything like an argument, or an answer to any of the questions I've asked.
>How do you study history seriously?
How does one study anything seriously?

140 IQ
>How does one study anything seriously?
When your field of study doesnt revolve around guessing and projecting your feelings then you can claim its serious.

>When your field of study doesnt revolve around guessing and projecting your feelings then you can claim its serious.
I say again that you don't know anything about the study of history or about the nature of academia.
Having a high IQ doesn't make you an expert on everything.
You can call the validity of the discipline of history into question if you want, but I hope that first you answer my questions about the legitimacy of the subject I mentioned in the OP. If you have nothing to say about that, why are you here?

How could you study medicine seriously? It's a corrupt industry of racketeers funded by major pharma companies that still (in America, at least) operates as pseudo-guild through the American Medical Association. For every effective general practictioner there are 15 hit or miss specialists who demand millions of dollars, to say nothing of the billions if not trillions thrown in the toilet for "cancer research" or whatever pet disease is hot this month. The AMA and organizations like it are literally why Western countries are two steps away from government default every year.

You're pushing your point of view right now.

fleecing tax dollars and grant money out of honest people.

creating a department of high-status, fairly well compensated jobs for your political allies.

some of them actually believe the things they write, too.

>140 IQ

oh boy..

> It's a corrupt industry of racketeers funded by major pharma companies
Alex Jones pls
>to say nothing of the billions if not trillions thrown in the toilet for "cancer research"
You don't even understand what cancer is, its not just a disease, fighting cancer is like fighting ageing you are not going to get quick results or a miracle cure.
>The AMA and organizations like it are literally why Western countries are two steps away from government default every year.
The USA's economy depends more on medical exports than fucking agriculture, you're literally wrong, other western countries are collapsing under the weight of their welfare system.

>Alex Jones pls
Pic related.
>You don't even understand what cancer is, its not just a disease, fighting cancer is like fighting ageing you are not going to get quick results or a miracle cure.
His point was about the amount of money being spent on the research, not about the nature of cancer.
>The USA's economy depends more on medical exports than fucking agriculture, you're literally wrong, other western countries are collapsing under the weight of their welfare system.
I don't think you got his point.

Fuck, pic

>Where in the OP do I imply that I don't thin it is?
Your generally superior, patronizing tone implies that you think it's not a legitimate field of study.

>so how about you give me an answer?
Ok, then yes, women's studies (etc.) is a legitimate use of educational resources.

>Why does this field exist distinctly from sociology, philosophy, or history, then?
It's a multidisciplinary field. Many academics recognized as in women's studies are in sociology, philosophy, pop culture, or history departments.

>I'm more interested in discussion than in eliminating gender studies.
That's good, because some neckbeard NEET is going to have a really tough time eliminating gender studies with help only from his band of 15 unique posters.

Jokes aside, I'm not here to teach you gender studies 101. I did give you a resource that would help, though.

Protip: It's helpful if you start threads on topics you are knowledgeable about, because then you can actually promote discussion.

>Pic related.
Meme arguments deserve meme responses.

>His point was about the amount of money being spent on the research, not about the nature of cancer.
Its literally the same thing, the nature of cancer is why its research its complex, expensive and high priority.
>I don't think you got his point.
What's his point then?

>Your generally superior, patronizing tone implies that you think it's not a legitimate field of study.
Maybe I do, maybe I don't.
>Ok, then yes, women's studies (etc.) is a legitimate use of educational resources.
Thanks.
>Jokes aside, I'm not here to teach you gender studies 101. I did give you a resource that would help, though.
>Protip: It's helpful if you start threads on topics you are knowledgeable about, because then you can actually promote discussion.
You're choosing to avoid discussion, here. I'm just asking you questions. You're calling me a neckbeard (not true, btw). I don't have time to read a book during the course of this thread. I don't understand why you would post here if you're not interested in discussing the topic at hand.

I never asked you to read a book, I asked you to browse a pdf. You have been responding to posts consistently for an hour and a half, you very obviously have a lot of time on your hands to at least read the introduction.

>Meme arguments
How was that a meme argument? Are you denying the existence of corruption in the medical industry?
>Its literally the same thing,
No it isn't, the structure of cancer cells does not consist of billions of dollars.
>What's his point then?
That the medical industry is bloated (like any X-industrial complex) and doesn't actually exist to service sick people, no matter how much empathy nurses and doctors might have for their patients.

>ou have been responding to posts consistently for an hour and a half, you very obviously have a lot of time on your hands to at least read the introduction.
I'm doing other things. Could you summarize that introduction for me? You obviously have the time to type up responses to my posts.

>summarize 6 pages of large print text
lol no.

Nice troll thread, OP. Well memed

>How was that a meme argument?
Your perception of corruption is no argument its an opinion.
>No it isn't, the structure of cancer cells does not consist of billions of dollars.
What are you even trying to say here?
>That the medical industry is bloated
And produces profit
> and doesn't actually exist to service sick people,
Literally proven wrong by statistics.
Can you argue without getting emotionally involved? its affecting your logic.

It would take you one post, friend.

>Your perception of corruption is no argument its an opinion.
I wasn't the one who made the claim in the first place. I'm another user.
>What are you even trying to say here?
That you're wrong to say that cancer's nature and the manner in which it is funded are identical.
>And produces profit
Cool.
>Literally proven wrong by statistics.
Which statistics? You already admit that it produces profit, that's my point: the medical industry is an INDUSTRY, not a humanism.
>Can you argue without getting emotionally involved? its affecting your logic.
That's funny, coming from you. Your entire argument is rooted in an emotional attachment to the medical-industrial complex. Not that there's anything wrong with that, it's important that our medical professionals be compassionate, on top of being tools of Reason. It's just getting in the way of your logic.

>manner in which it is funded are identical.

manner in which research* is funded

The Humanities part of Veeky Forums is the worst

This
Humanities was a mistake, it's nothing but trash

It focuses attention on parts of history that previously didn't get much. It makes knowledge more complete. There's no problem with that.

Wrong: the worst part of Veeky Forums is that one evolutionist guy.

People like OP et. al are a close second.

>It makes knowledge more complete
Having another competing narrative in the mix =/= "making knowledge more complete." I have no fucking idea where you people get the idea that it does.
Sorry for asking questions!

Nailed me to a T desu.

Cancer's nature is what determines the way its funded...
>Which statistics?
Survival rates of the USA vs the rest of the world? I'm not even American.
>that's my point: the medical industry is an INDUSTRY, not a humanism.
So?
>our entire argument is rooted in an emotional attachment to the medical-industrial complex.
I'm not even American.
> it's important that our medical professionals be compassionate
Its not important, emotional attachment detters medical practice, a surgeon is not adviced to perform on family for example.
Agreed.

You shouldn't approach competing narratives with a you vs. them mentality. Also, how do you know that actual academic feminist historians necessarily represent a competing narrative from the mainstream (if such a thing exists).

>Cancer's nature is what determines the way its funded...
Nobody is denying this, your reference to the difficulties associated with curing the disease does nothing to negate the fact that cancer research is expensive and has not yet cured the disease.
>Survival rates of the USA vs the rest of the world? I'm not even American.
I'm asking you to show me the statistics you're talking about, not your ethnicity.
>So?
You agree with me, then?
>I'm not
I didn't ask if you were American.
>Its not important, emotional attachment detters medical practice, a surgeon is not adviced to perform on family for example.
Compassion is not emotional attachment. Compassion consists of caring about others, being moved by their circumstances, and acting to help them when they're in pain or distress. Most of the medical track students I've known have claimed that they want to help people, or relieve sickness, etc. Are you saying that doctors and nurses shouldn't want to do these things? That they should all just be mechanical, soulless nihilists?

>you vs. them
How about "true vs. false?"
>Also, how do you know that actual academic feminist historians necessarily represent a competing narrative from the mainstream (if such a thing exists).
I don't, I'm suggesting that new narratives are always competing narratives, that every narrative competes with every other, that some are acknowledged as being more accurate (i.e., better accounts of what happened as it happened) than others, and that the purpose of scholarship is not to simply produce new narratives but to produce narratives which are more accurate than those which came before.

>true vs. false
Surely you're not an epistemological absolutist.

Surely you're not telling me that you don't think it's possible for a narrative to be inaccurate? I find it insulting that you throw the phrase "epistemological absolutist" out there as if thinking that some propositions are accurate is a crime.

>How about "true vs. false?"
Oh shit guys we have a genius over here

t. someone who has never read pieper

That doesn't look like an argument.

I think that some narratives are supportable and others are not supportable, and that there exist varying degrees in which a proposition can be argued for convincingly.

I do not think that some things are "true" and some things are "false" within the context of academics.

>I find it insulting
You do realize this is Veeky Forums, right?

That's because non-arguments don't deserve counterarguments

>I think that some narratives are supportable and others are not supportable
And you don't think that supportability has anything to do with accuracy?
> and that there exist varying degrees in which a proposition can be argued for convincingly.
What are the circumstances in which you would be willing to accept a premise?
>I do not think that some things are "true" and some things are "false" within the context of academics.
How about in the context of actuality? Is it false that you were born?
>Veeky Forums
Yes, I do, but that's not an excuse to be retarded.

Which is why
>How about "true vs. false"
did not need to be an argument: I was not responding to one.

>And you don't think that supportability has anything to do with accuracy?
I don't care about that.
>What are the circumstances in which you would be willing to accept a premise?
That's ad hoc.
>How about in the context of actuality? Is it false that you were born?
I also don't really care about that.

>retarded
right back at you, boy.

>I don't care about that.
Why not?
>That's ad hoc.
What's your point?
>I also don't really care about that.
You don't care about whether or not you were born?

>The difficulty of cancer research has nothing to do with the expenses and results of that research
Ayyyy, btw there is no such thing as a cure for cancer, its not a fucking virus or bacteria its a colateral of having DNA.
And there are results and a lot of new techniques in the horizon, no more generic treatment every cancer case will have a customized meds.
>I'm asking you to show me the statistics you're talking about, not your ethnicity.
Just search cancer and surgery mortality rates.
>Compassion is not emotional attachment. Compassion consists of caring about others,being moved by their circumstances
Sooooo getting emotionally attached..

>>The difficulty of cancer research has nothing to do with the expenses and results of that research
This phrase shows up nowhere in this thread prior to your post.
>search
How about you provide a link? I'm not going to look anything up, you can give me a link. Don't call this "spoonfeeding," is it spoonfeeding to have a bibliography at the end of a book?
>Sooooo getting emotionally attached..
Where in that post did I mention attachment? You're strawmanning really hard.

>Why not?
Why would I care about truth when it's unknowable?
>What's my point?
That I don't really have set-in-stone rules for being convinced by something, and I consider things on a case-by-case basis. The level of a rigor I need before I accept something usually increases with my interest in the subject.
>You don't care about whether or not you were born?
Why would it matter?

>Why would I care about truth when it's unknowable?
How do you know that truth is unknowable?
>The level of a rigor I need before I accept something usually increases with my interest in the subject.
So you could believe anything on any grounds, in the right situation?
>Why would it matter?
Well, if you were never born, I don't see how we could be having this conversation. It matters a fair bit.

>How do you know that truth is unknowable?
Good question, ask a philosopher.
>So you could believe anything on any grounds, in the right situation?
I wouldn't agree with that statement, no.
>Well, if you were never born, I don't see how we could be having this conversation. It matters a fair bit.
Well, I actually wasn't born. I was cut out of my mother's womb by doctors, or so I've been told.

>Good question, ask a philosopher.
Isn't WSGs an interdisciplinary field that interfaces with philosophy? You should be willing to answer questions about epistemology if you throw out a phrase like
>Surely you're not an epistemological absolutist.
Epistemology is an explicitly philosophical topic. You can either fuck off and stop making epistemological claims or engage with the philosophical tradition and make an argument.
>I wouldn't agree with that statement, no.
What wouldn't you believe, and why wouldn't you believe it?
>Well, I actually wasn't born. I was cut out of my mother's womb by doctors, or so I've been told.
A Caesarean section is a birth.

>This phrase shows up nowhere in this thread prior to your post.
Well literally it doesn't but that's what you're implying.
>is it spoonfeeding to have a bibliography at the end of a book?
Well someone paid for that book, you are giving me nothing in return :^)Just kidding, have a fun read cancer.org/acs/groups/content/@epidemiologysurveilance/documents/document/acspc-027766.pdf
>Where in that post did I mention attachment?
Being moved by the patient illness is being attached, a patient is a case you must solve, that's your job.If you are a mess of emotions because a kid died on you then you are going to get more people killed.

>Well literally it doesn't but that's what you're implying.
Check your reading comprehension, Mr. 140 IQ
>Well someone paid for that book, you are giving me nothing in return :^)
Nobody paid for this hypothetical book that doesn't exist. Thanks for the link.
>Being moved by the patient illness is being attached, a patient is a case you must solve, that's your job.If you are a mess of emotions because a kid died on you then you are going to get more people killed.
I'm implying that compassion is a motive for becoming a doctor for many people, not that doctors ought to be emotional wrecks.

>Isn't WSGs an interdisciplinary field that interfaces with philosophy?
Yes, but I fail to see the relevance to this discussion.
>make an argument.
I'm sure that the argument has already been made by someone smarter than I am and communicated in better language than I could.
>What wouldn't you believe, and why wouldn't you believe it?
My problem is with your quantifiers, not necessarily with what you're trying to say.
>A Caesarean section is a birth.
This isn't an uncommon viewpoint, but not universally agreed upon.

>Yes, but I fail to see the relevance to this discussion.
This goes back to my claim that some narratives are more accurate than others, and that truth is preferable to falsehood.
>I'm sure that the argument has already been made by someone smarter than I am and communicated in better language than I could.
Nice security. How about you post a link to an argument, or make one yourself? I'm not asking for the best argument ever made, I'm just asking for an argument.
>My problem is with your quantifiers, not necessarily with what you're trying to say.
But what are the criteria that determine whether or not you're willing to believe propositions in general, regardless of claims I'm making? Can you just answer this question?
>This isn't an uncommon viewpoint, but not universally agreed upon.
Look, you clearly know what I mean, stop being difficult about this. I'm trying to move this conversation forward.

My reading comprehension is fine, you are unwilling to admit you were ignorant of why cancer research is so expensive and (according to you) provides no results.
>I'm implying that compassion is a motive for becoming a doctor
Haven't met one that didn't drop out

>My reading comprehension is fine, you are unwilling to admit you were ignorant of why cancer research is so expensive and (according to you) provides no results.
I'm not ignorant, you just keep asserting the complexity of the phenomenon. Nobody is denying that cancer research is expensive, or that there are reasons for it to be expensive. The point in question is literally-LITERALLY-whether or not it IS expensive.
>Haven't met one that didn't drop out
How about nurses? I know plenty of nurses who genuinely care about helping patients.

>Women, Gender, and Sexuality
You obviously will have a guaranteed position in the Women, Gender, and Sexuality factory.
Tumblr and regressivism need to expand.

>How about you post a link to an argument
Ok.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fitch's_paradox_of_knowability
>But what are the criteria that determine whether or not you're willing to believe propositions in general, regardless of claims I'm making?
As I've tried to say, I don't have universal criteria for evaluating knowledge. I really don't understand why this is so difficult for you.
>stop being difficult about this.
I'm just in this for the bants. Calm down, this isn't high school debate club.

>Having another competing narrative in the mix =/= "making knowledge more complete."

There isn't much competition over topics that haven't had any scholarship yet. You think I'm talking about "But What About The Womens In Napoleon?!?". I'm talking about points where literally nothing has been written yet and primary sources are sitting around unused.

Also

>I really don't understand why this is so difficult for you.
I'm just asking you for a few criteria for anything. You keep saying "it depends" as if that isn't obvious. There are still conditions. I.e. you have to be capable of thinking; a proposition has to be presented to you; etc. You can't just say "hurr I don't know" and act like you're making a decent point, unless you're trying to be Socrates--but you've already denied any interest in philosophy.
>I'm just in this for the bants. Calm down, this isn't high school debate club.
I'm high on adderall, this is just fun

>MUH IQ
lol

this
why the fuck isn't it history only?

>I'm talking about points where literally nothing has been written yet and primary sources are sitting around unused.
In that case, I have no objection.
>Also
Those posts do not contain a proper argument against the idea that accurate scholarship is better than inaccurate scholarship.

Nursing is the correct career choice for those people.
>nobody is denying that cancer research is expensive, or that there are reasons for it to be expensive.
"to say nothing of the billions if not trillions thrown in the toilet for "cancer research" "
I dunno man it seems you are saying cancer research is a scam and that its funding is worthless.
>IQ is irrelevant because I scored lower than my ego can handle
lol

>I dunno man it seems you are saying cancer research is a scam and that its funding is worthless
I say again that I am not the person who wrote that.
>>IQ is irrelevant
There you go, strawmanning again. He was just making fun of you for claiming to have a high IQ on an anonymous imageboard.

>Those posts do not contain a proper argument against the idea that accurate scholarship is better than inaccurate scholarship.

No proper argument has been presented that accuracy is a real possibility in many, let alone most cases.

>He was just making fun of you for claiming to have a high IQ on an anonymous imageboard.
And you know this because? it clearly reads as he is laughing about IQ being an indication of intelligence, a stereotypical opinion of average IQ people with big egos.

>No proper argument has been presented that accuracy is a real possibility in many, let alone most cases.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leopold_von_Ranke
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verisimilitude
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Popper
Knock yourself out.