Is he right?

(((they)))

This "redpill" shitposting is getting tiring, and I know it's you who's responsible and you're doing it ironically but it's still shitposting

It might come across as shitposting to you, but it's still true.

Deal with it, don't let your feels get hurt

it's time to stop posting.

>>>/tumblr/

where is the proof m8. u need proof to make such a bold statement.

>example of humanity stripped down to its pure base
>12 y/o boys

i think they (the critics) might have a point

Read breivik and the unabomber.

Kaczynski is actually worth reading unlike the murderous manbaby who plagiarized his manifesto

Point still stands. They proved that cultural Marxism is our reality

it's not sexist I think but there is a sense of misogony, violence against women/maternal figures that is in the novel. That doesnt make it bad though. theres nothing that says "Lord of the Flies is how you should live your life" or whatever.

The worst thing about this is he doesn't even have the courage of his convictions he says 'I have to say I don't disagree' which seems less sure than just to say 'I agree'. What a knob

A man who advocates for Western feminism being unassertive and timid???

>"Western Feminism"
what?

Okay so I forced myself to sit through this insufferable douchebag talking about it.

Regardless of what you thought about lord of the flies it certainly isn't sexist. It's just about a bunch of schoolboys on a desert island. How do you manage to complain about no female characters when the only possible people to write about are the schoolboys? Schools were often segregated by sex back when Golding was writing the book, and some are even now, so it's natural to assume that it would either have to be a bunch of schoolboys or a bunch of schoolgirls. However it would be incredibly odd and unlikely for it to be schoolgirls, given that people write what they know and are more comfortable with writing their own sex.

Applying 3rd wave feminist theory to books written over 60 years ago and then critiquing it as such is meaningless and ultimately distracting from real critique.

Bitching about the wage gap and sexy video games.

>finding video games sexy
holy basement dweller batman

Surely humans stripped down to their base is sexuality

Man, he looks pretty tore up now.
His wife must have started inviting black dudes over for drinks in earnest.

>All there is is sexuality.
Retarded and gay
See fagtron, unlike Green the pornomaster, William Golding was arguing the intrinsic evil of man, in the purest form of himself (kids), and by extension, all humans

there is sexuality, I think a large part of the misogony which comes in the form of the rape of the sow is sexuality.

this only holds for women, since women wants to feel good
men just want to feel acknowledged by reality/nature/women

I don't understand what the words "sexist" and "racist" even mean.

I don't understand representational criticism at all. "There aren't enough ___ in this piece of media!" So what?

The truly disconcerting subtext of this criticism is that not only are people taking their cues on how to feel/think/want from media, but that this is so accepted/unchallenged that rather than develop better people, it's preferred to develop more customized media so that everyone feels included and the media get to keep their place in the castle.

Seems fucking stupid and anti-intellectual, rounded out with a nice contemporary bowl of "pragmatic."

sexism
1 : prejudice or discrimination based on sex; especially : discrimination against women. 2 : behavior, conditions, or attitudes that foster stereotypes of social roles based on sex.

Racism

the belief that all members of each race possess characteristics or abilities specific to that race, especially so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races.
prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one's own race is superior.
"a program to combat racism"

You're dictionary is outdated. Sexism isn't just prejudice, it's prejudice plus institutional power. Same for racism.

Frankly I'm wondering whether he's right about Golding's depiction of savagery being wrong

>plus institutional power
what did he meant by this

>he
What did he mean by this

Power wielded by institutions like the government and megacorporations which are dominated by the straight white dudebro. Hence why women can't be sexist and blacks can't be racist. Sometimes they may have some individual power like Hillary and Obama, but the institutions remain unchanged and still favor straight white dudebros as they always did.

that's retarded

It's current-day mainstream feminist doctrine.

Which is retarded.

>implying acknowledgement isn't our fetish, and thus sexual

the 19th century called, they want their retarded ideas back.

The sad thing is, absent the semantic twisting, this actually isn't all that crazy. It's perfectly reasonable to claim that some forms of racism/sexism are more dominant than others, going back and saying "therefore non-dominant racism/sexism isn't actually racism/sexism" just ruins it.

The honest doctrine is that anti-white racism and misandry technically exist but don't really matter compared to anti-black racism and misogyny.

>The honest doctrine is that anti-white racism and misandry technically exist but don't really matter compared to anti-black racism and misogyny.
Bugger off.

Not saying it's true, just saying that's what people are trying to say when they say racism/sexism are institutionally defined.

I haven't actually read Lord of the Flies but the impression I have is that things don't exactly work out well for the boys on the island and they descend into savagery.

So even if we put aside the most likely explanation that it was a reflection of attitudes at the time it was written, is it really putting forward the idea that men get on well without women?

Because it would appear to be doing the opposite.

You misunderstand. The criticism boils down to "There are no strong female characters in this book." Because there are no female characters at all.

I don't understand how none confronts that greenigger
He's a retard, his criticism is shallow and on the basis of today. It's like criticizing mud huts as shitty architecture, even though you're just able to create a pile of shit and live in there

But aren't they savages?

>Cultural Marxism

>Sure, some people would say it's preposterous to claim that Marxism has had any serious political capital since the collapse of the Soviet Union, but those people don't read the same forums I do.

It's a common phrase you fucking sperg.

The whole point of the series is to produce educational videos, he's trying to provide
a range of interpretations about the novel (or sometimes a single interpretation when that is all that is necessary). He's trying to maintain some level of objectivity and prompt discussion, not "saying it how it is".

If you don't think he does that well then fine, but don't claim he is making a propaganda video when that's clearly not what he is doing.

If this is the case, then how can an individual be racist?

>He thinks the interests of working class white people are similar to the interests of the white establishment

>He doesn't realise that women in the establishment have more in common with the men in the establishment than they do with working class white women.

>he doesn't know this because he is a metropolitan liberal who has never met a truly working class person in his life

>anti-white racism

The issue is not that there is anti-white racism, the issue is that they present all white people as having access to institutions of power, which is simply untrue.

This becomes a problem when well off, well educated minorities claim to be discriminated against more than the working class white people do.

The reality is that the system is unfair for the vast majority of people, and consequently it needs to change. That need not be along racial or sexual lines, unless we are satisfied that the system we have is equal opportunity as far as economics go, and that's self-evidently false.

But they really don't. Black Lives Matter isn't a serious threat, nor are those nutjobs who claim that white people have stolen history. Modern feminism, while unpleasant about men on a regular basis and usually wrong, are not causing tangible damage to the status of men in any direct fashion.

If we accept that something can be sexist because of omission, then do we not descend into labelling everything sexist/racist if it does not include those themes?

I mean, I am willing to consider the possibility that race or gender are inescapable and factor in to our daily lives whether we want them to or not, but that is not the purpose of a novel. Novels should make a statement, and to do that effectively one must omit extraneous details.

Consequently, if one wishes to make a statement about something which is unrelated to race, the most practical means of doing so is to simply omit race from the discussion.

I mean, this thinking is already common in other forms of media and one would have thought most cultural critics or academics would already be aware of it.

This. It's just the same faggot doing it too, I imagine he posts on that robotics board with the sad amphibians as well

I don't support critical theory in literature by any means but you have to see the problem with building an allegory for humanity and its nature which ignores about half of humanity and its nature.

It doesn't ignore half of humanity. It ignores the female perspective just as much as it ignores the male perspective, it's about children. It ignores all issues of race, class, gender, religion, ideology and modern concerns of every kind in order to focus on the fundamental, universal aspects of our species in a setting completely removed from civilization.

Allegory of humanity =/= Allegory of Mensch
andis correct, kids usually see eachother as equal, it's man in a nutshell

I'm not >8381715 but while I can see your point, I can't help but wonder if practicalities may be a problem here.

When the novel was written, gendered schooling was the norm and only elite schools would send students on such lavish trips. I think it's possible that if Golding had made some characters female it may have distorted the message he was trying to put across by drawing attention to extraneous details.

Perhaps people would come to the conclusion he was claiming that if girls and boys were educated together it would cause society to break down.

I don't agree with interpreting a novel's message based on omissions alone, unless there is good reason to believe that omission was deliberate.

If Golding goes to great lengths to point out that there are no women or characters reflect on how things might have been if women had been there then maybe there is a point.

If not, one could as well say that the book treats the elderly unfairly because there are no elderly characters.

But didn't Golding say himself if he introduced girls into the story it would become all about sex? Can't describe that much of a fundamental aspect of our species if it's necessary to keep pussy out of it to work.

It's necessary to keep pussy out because women aren't human :^)

Honestly it accommodates to Golding's objective, and way more straightforward than +100 pages of sex and love affairs, then kill each other.
It's faster this way fag

Surely you've noticed that sex tends to attract people's attention, often in an obsessive way. By including it, you divert attention from other points you try to make. Particularly if your audience considers sex to be scandalous.

As Golding says, the book would have been all about sex... and less interesting as a result.

But the kids are not babies: they are humans capable of thinking and acting, because it's an allegory of humanity as a collective lead by capable, mature individuals; sexuality is an integral part of such individuals and of such a collective, therefore it has to be an integral part of the allegory regarding these. Class, religion, race (in its social aspects) and ideology are not inherent parts of the human existence - sex is. It's ridiculous to claim the nature of a sexual male, even if young, isn't different than the nature of a female; even when ignoring the inaccuracy of portraying a non-sexual society as an allegory for humanity, Golding still places men, half of humanity, as the entire humanity.

Reading it as an allegory of mensch (and maybe, even, critique of male hegemony) is interesting, the problem, I guess, is how Golding made sure to notify everyone and their sisters the book is an allegory of humanity.

You obviously have a point, but that's an old problem with critical reading: Golding obviously wrote the reality of his time, before gender politics and modern feminism were a thing. He reflects the consensus of male hegemony, at a time when looking into the souls of men was pretty much enough to build an allegory of humanity and it's dynamics - since men pretty much ruled. You have to understand: critical theory is very much in line with 'death of the author' - it's not about the work as a piece defined within a context, it's about the work as a composition with many possible meanings, in which you can find structures of thought (and, in this case, female-depressing social structures as they are reflected in the text) to consider.

Don't you love how much like a conspiracy theory this sounds? It's also convenient because it rids certain groups of autonomy, allowing them to act however they please.

The red pill is a placebo

Hahahayahahahahahayatatafafaga

nah m8, if the cast of the lord of the flies was created with the same standards as the contemporary novel, we would have too many "interesting" or "relatable" characters to distract from the very simple theme of the novel, wherein that at our core, humanity is a selfish and destructive entity that cannot govern itself, especially when it's a bunch of repressed english kids marooned on an island. It's a short book and fairly straightforward. I could go on about ableism and class struggle too, but it wasn't the point. If Golding didn't reduce the characters to the extremely simple caricature of schoolboys, we would be wasting a lot more time analyzing racism and who-wants-to-fuck-who, which is as distracting as it is intellectually dishonest. Go ahead and call it sexist, but everything from that era was sexist so it's kind of a stupid and obvious thing to talk about, ya?

Unbelievable

I think so, given the way women are described but not shown.

But Veeky Forums ought to realize that social criticism of a book is not any judgment of value.