How does /his/ feel about the theory of Kyriarchy?
>Kyriarchy, pronounced /ˈkaJriɑːrki/, is a social system or set of connecting social systems built around domination, oppression, and submission. The word was coined by Elisabeth Schüssler Fiorenza in 1992 to describe her theory of interconnected, interacting, and self-extending systems of domination and submission, in which a single individual might be oppressed in some relationships and privileged in others. It is an intersectional extension of the idea of patriarchy beyond gender.[1] Kyriarchy encompasses sexism, racism, homophobia, classism, economic injustice, colonialism, ethnocentrism, militarism, and other forms of dominating hierarchies in which the subordination of one person or group to another is internalized and institutionalized.[2][3]
>Elisabeth Schüssler Fiorenza (born 17 April 1938, Cenad) is a Romanian-born German, Roman Catholic[1] feminist theologian, who is currently the Krister Stendahl Professor of Divinity at Harvard Divinity School.
I am slightly surprised she's use the term "kyrios" so negatively, seeing as how it is synonymous with "God" in Christian hymns and theology.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L1ryVj9MiD4
>>806513
It's the next logical step for feminists, since we demonstrably do not live in the kind of patriarchy they claim we do.
>>806596
What kind is that, exactly?
>>806596
>demonstrably
Demonstrate it.
>>806613
That's not what feminists mean by patriarchy (at least in the modern US). Feminists define it as a set of cultural norms.
>>806619
>Feminists define it
No.
"Kyrie" means "Lord."
I find this to be the most acceptable formulation of the notion of patriarchy I've ever encountered.
>>806619
>Feminists define it as a set of cultural norms.
They define it as a system of oppression which perpetuates notions of masculinity at the extent of both males and non-males. "A set of cultural norms" can't possibly be a statement of the essence of "the patriarchy."
>>806637
>extent
expense*
>>806619
>Feminists define it as a set of cultural norms.
Well that's awfully convenient for them, isn't it? Tell you what, I choose to define "fucking stupid piece of pedo faggot" as meaning "Leftist !yWBHp/yj52". I'm sure you won't mind people calling you a stupid pedo faggot, afterall when _I_ call you that, I don't mean what everyone else means!
>>806513
>Kyriarchy, pronounced /ˈkaJriɑːrki/, is a social system or set of connecting social systems built around domination, oppression, and submission
So all social systems that ever existed and ever will exist?
The only way to enforce any value is to oppress the opposing value and those that push it.
>>806623
But you said
>the kind of patriarchy they claim we do
It doesn't matter if you like their definition.
>>806646
>you said
No.
>>806646
You're talking to more than one person. Feminists do NOT mean some vague set of cultural norms when they say "patriarchy", they mean what everyone else means by patriarchy. We live in arguably the least patriarchal society in history, so they're being forced to drop the term in the face of walls of howls of derisive laughter.
>>806623
>>806658
>That comic
Go back to Tumblr.
>>806658
Wow what an enraging comic. I hope the artist dies, in considerable pain, preferably of cancer of the asshole, sometime within the next three weeks.
>>806664
Ugh, so I take it you don't have an actual argument?
>>806658
This comic should trigger some retards.
>>806637
>notions of masculinity
Which constitute a set of cultural norms.
>>806640
Lol u mad
>>806651
Sorry, hard to keep track of who said what when everyone's anonymous.
>>806655
>they mean what everyone else means by patriarchy
I disagree. The definition of patriarchy used by feminists, at least those I've encountered, I'd not synonymous with the traditional definition.
>>806637
>"Kyrie" means "Lord."
Yes, but she's a THEOLOGIAN. So consider that it's a bit unusual to use the term so negatively in theology.
>>806701
>Which constitute a set of cultural norms.
Such a vague definition is so useless that we'd be better off discarding it. Admit you made a mistake and the discussion can move forward, nobody will think less of you if you accept a more accurate and more specific notion of patriarchy.
>>806674
>Ugh,
I don't have an argument, I probably agree with you, I just find that comic to be aesthetically tasteless.
>>806701
>I disagree. The definition of patriarchy used by feminists, at least those I've encountered, I'd not synonymous with the traditional definition.
Then they're simply being dishonest. You can't change a definition and then accuse other people of getting it "wrong".
>>806513
So basically it's the underpinning of Privilege and other SJW bullshit concepts.
>>806710
She's a modern Catholic feminist theologian. If there's anything to the Vatican II conspiracy theories this could be an attempt to blemish the name of God.
Or perhaps there are more nuanced theological implications than the ones that we immediately associate with notions of domination and subjugation in feminist discourse. Remember that God is by definition a dominant figure in Catholicism. This is probably an attempt to provide a palatable notion of power structures that's compatible with devotion to a deity with which one is in a subservient relationship.
>>806723
Yes, she argues it using Vatican II theology
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1mgn2Y1Yvhs
>>806713
I wasn't trying to provide a complete definition, I was responding to the claim that feminists think patriarchy is about legality. Obviously it's about more than just cultural norms.
>>806715
Ok, you can think that way. The initial post that triggered this was claiming that feminists believe we live in a patriarchy as defined by our laws.
>>806787
>Obviously it's about more than just cultural norms
Then why did you provide a definition according to which that's what it is? Or do you not know what a definition is supposed to do?
>>806787
>Ok, you can think that way.
No, there's no "think that way". It's simply a fact that if someone uses a word with a new definition, they cannot then claim other people are misusing that word. Well they CAN, but it's blatantly dishonest.
>>806849
I guess you don't know how definitions work.
>>806658
>Wow this comic was really great, I like how it taught us a few things about language in a way that most people will understand
>go to the comic's website
>it's tumblr tier SJW cutesy sitcom-influenced shit
Into the trash it goes
>>806968
>>Wow this comic was really great, I like how it taught us a few things about language in a way that most people will understand
Maybe the next time you read a comic that tries to teach you something you won't have to go to Tumblr before you get irritated.
The decision to teach things in a way that most people will understand is problematic (hurr) because if there are falsehoods they're less likely to be noticed than they would be in a less cutesy format. In this case, most of the people who read it will probably just think "That's cute, I learned a couple tidbits of useless information" and not think of it again. In other cases, it can be on par with /pol/-tier dis/misinformation about the Jews
>>806513
Sounds retarded and useless and I'll probably forget about it in an hour or so.
>>806513
>Kyriarchy
Has always struck me as basically a common-sense, incontrovertible way of describing oppression in the social system. Its major claims translate directly enough into graph theory concepts that you could model it and see if it makes any interesting predictions.
>>806619
>>806658
Cool here is another comic that better describes what is actually happening
>>806658
the comic is proving too much, since if we are to follow it to the end, dictionaries or developed language conventions have no actual use, since literally everyone has their subtle variations of meanings when it comes to the words they use.
>>807006
this
>>806658
>Holy shit! The English dictionary was written by White English people. Holy fuck, how problematic!
This comic basically summarises how different languages are formed and perpetuate themselves. While it tries to be egalitarian all it emphasise the differences between population groups.
It's basically valid points put through a retard filter.
>>806513
>Kyriarchy, pronounced /ˈkaJriɑːrki/, is a social system or set of connecting social systems built around domination, oppression, and submission.
So all non-communist societies (all societies that have thus far existed)
>>807146
Yeah, this is the issue with Leftists. They eloquently describe what they see to be 'problems' within a society. Usually turns out these 'problems' are universal or perfectly normal human behaviours. I guess the issue is that the hardcore Leftists tend to think of people as blank sheets of paper to be written upon and the more moderate ones are just 'well intentioned' fools who think they're doing the right thing.
>>807168
Domination, oppression, and submission may be historically and presently universal and normal, but that doesn't mean they aren't problems. Very clearly. They are. Cancer is a normally occurring thing that occurs everywhere, but it's not at all a good thing.
And I'm guessing a Roman Catholic theologian isn't a Leftist, nevermind a hardcore Leftist, but even if she is that doesn't make what she's saying wrong. I suggest you take your lesson about making people into black sheets of paper to heart.
>>807191
I think that was a critique of your odd choice to say "all non-communist societies."
Some problems can't be solved. Cancer, for example, may be a disease with no cure, no matter how much money may be funneled into it.
>>807191
>Domination, oppression, and submission may be historically and presently universal and normal, but that doesn't mean they aren't problems.
All efforts to remove them have resulted in the same thing repeating coupled with extreme violence and social chaos. Egalitarianism is the single greatest killer in human history.
>>807191
>but that doesn't mean they aren't problems
Can you show me they are?
I can demonstrate cancer is a problem because it is abnormal functioning of the body, where the cells whose function is normally to maintain animal physiological functions suffer a mutation that makes them behave in disregard to this. It is in fact not normal. Just because it happens doesn't make it normal, much less something you can define as "good" or "bad" which just rests on an existing moral principle (in this instance egalitarianism being good and the opposite being bad) which we have to accept to fall into the "look at how horrible these behaviors are!" narrative.
>>807201
I'm pretty sure malaria is number one.
>>807198
>I think that was a critique of your odd choice to say "all non-communist societies."
It shouldn't be odd: a communist society is a future state that has no means of domination, oppression, or submission. This of course doesn't fit the bill for any previously or currently existing society.
>>807201
>All efforts to remove them have resulted in the same thing repeating coupled with extreme violence and social chaos.
1) No.
2) Irrelevant.
>Egalitarianism is the single greatest killer in human history.
I can't even figure out how that made sense even in your head.
>>807220
>Can you show me they are?
Don't be fucking stupid, anon.
>>807245
>a communist society is a future state that has no means of domination, oppression, or submission
I haven't heard this one before. I thought it was one in which class distinctions had been eliminated and the means of production were commonly owned by the workers.
>>806701
And all the others aren't true Scotsmen anyway
>>807247
Please illuminate me on how I'm being stupid
>>807245
>1) No.
>2) Irrelevant.
1. I don't know which histories of revolutions you've been reading but revolutionaries tend to glorify violence and glory in it.
2. Why not?
>I can't even figure out how that made sense even in your head.
I'm not that anon and I can't either, but I also would like to see you make an argument in favor of prescriptive egalitarianism that can't be blown apart quickly. I'm willing to bet you'll appeal to moral intuitions and think that that's an argument. That or get salty about being asked to make an argument and back up your claims.
>>807250
>I thought it was one in which class distinctions had been eliminated and the means of production were commonly owned by the workers.
This is actually a conflation of communism and socialism. Under socialism, workers own the means of production but classes still exist. Under communism, there are no classes, including no worker class, and the means of production is commonly owned by all.
I realize this kind of idea triggers people but my point is that this is the only kind of society in which those three things don't occur. More simply: it's a board kind of categorization. Not that it's wrong, because it isn't, but I'm not sure how meaningful it is, except maybe as a conceptualization of unity between past and present modes.
>>807263
1) Egalitarianism encompasses far more Marxist revolutionary theories, which to add don't glorify violence but do glorify struggle against violent regimes imposed on workers and peasants.
2) Because this and being triggered about egalitarianism has literally nothing to do with what I said.
>>807283
>far more than
>>807283
>Egalitarianism encompasses far more Marxist revolutionary theories
I'm not only talking about Marxist revolutionary theories. I'm talking about revolutionaries.
>Because this and being triggered about egalitarianism has literally nothing to do with what I said.
You're probably right. But are you a committed egalitarian? If so, why aren't you making better arguments?
>>807316
>I'm talking about revolutionaries.
That's a large category that in which egalitarianism is unnecessary.
>>807339
Sure, but your definition of 'communism' is actually closer to what 'egalitarianism' implies in 90% of its usages than what 'communism' implies in 100% of its proper uses.
>>807191
>And I'm guessing a Roman Catholic theologian isn't a Leftist, nevermind a hardcore Leftist
You've never heard of liberation theology, then?
>>809621
LT isn't a leftist ideology. It's a Catholic criticism of official Catholic approval of far-right socio-economics. LT is centrist at most, which granted makes it to the left of fascist liberals like Pinochet, but that is not itself leftist.
>>809698
>fascist liberals
Yikes.
>>809698
How can someone discuss with people like this? I feel like communist intellectuals don't even live in the same world as normal human beings, they live in a second reality built entirely on their own ideas so it's basically impossible to establish a dialogue.
>>809698
It's part of a broader pattern of leftism inspired by / clothed in Christian theology. My point is that Catholics can be and often are leftist. Consider Latin America and Ireland for examples of whole Catholic countries voting in overtly Socialist regimes.
Also while I have nothing btu contempt for a disgusting murderer of children like Pinochet, he was in no way a fascist. His reforms were mostly of the free market variety and he didn't militarise his society. Don't just fling terms around as generic insults, they lose all meaning when you do that.
>>809724
Western intellectualism is doomed because this is in fact the case.
Any discussion of power structures that doesn't involve a reading of Vilfredo Pareto, Gaetano Mosca, Robert Michels and Bertrand de Jouvenel is by itself part of a power struggle.
Feminism and anti-racism, for example, is merely excuses for the expansion of State power at the expense of independent civil society.
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/1303.The_48_Laws_of_Power
Anyone know anything about the 48 Laws of Power? It's a modern synthesis of the likes of Sun Tsu and Machiavelli that seeks to isolate and identify how power works, and how people can gain power or deal with those who have power more safely. Seems legit to me, but then I'm an idiot. Anyone else have any thoughts?
>In b4 MUH MEME AUTHORS
>>809732
>independent civil society
RIP ;_;
This post applies to more than just who I've quoted.
>>809732
You imply you can get beyond or above facilitating a power struggle (by reading second-rate, at best, thinkers) but really there is no "beyond" power struggles. Struggle is inherent in the world, at least in the most scientific conceptions of it. In fact the best naturalist description of reality so far does so implicitly: "the will to power".
The desire to go beyond must itself be justified first. We know so far that it is defining itself against an inherent part of the world. That goes against it. It is nihilistic, a remnant of any other life-denying ideology (such as christianity). Why should it be taken seriously?
It is amazing how people get all uppity about ideology without even distrusting their need to do so.
>>809886
You know who was actually a second-rate thinker?
Nietzsche.
>>806513
>I am slightly surprised she's use the term "kyrios" so negatively, seeing as how it is synonymous with "God" in Christian hymns and theology.
You shouldn't be.
>>806658
Literally kill yourself back to tumblr
>>809886
>struggle
>scientific
>will to power
>naturalistic
Read more about science and nature pls
>>809724
Nice non-argument faggot. There is literally nothing in that post is wrong.
>>809710
Including this. Pinochet and other South American dictators were neofascists, they combined the far-right populism and militarist political authoritarianism of fascism with more liberal economics (due to their dependency on the United States) than the original European fascist states. They are fascists in everything except a lack of expansionism and, again, economics closer to liberalism and corporatism.
>>809726
>It's part of a broader pattern of leftism inspired by / clothed in Christian theology.
Only Catholics think this. It's the other way around. Even the founder of Liberation Theology said LT is entirely based on Christian doctrine and is just a poor-focused Catholicism, not at all leftism. There are lay Catholics that are socialists, like many (not all) Irish socialists, but they'd be excommunicated if the Church had the chance.
>>811568
Do you think of constitutional republicanism as fascism?
>Only Catholics think this
Are you the same guy who thinks anything a religious person believes is wrong in every other thread? This is getting old.
>Even the founder of Liberation Theology said LT is entirely based on Christian doctrine and is just a poor-focused Catholicism, not at all leftism
Obviously. It had to be compatible with Catholic doctine because it was being instituted in the Church.
>>807274
>This is actually a conflation of communism and socialism. Under socialism, workers own the means of production but classes still exist. Under communism, there are no classes, including no worker class, and the means of production is commonly owned by all.
What the fuck are you talking about? No worker class? Do you assume robots that don't require fuel will be invented right before the revolution happens? Are you delusional?
>this is the only kind of society in which these things don't occur
So you're trolling me?
>>811597
I'm pretty sure the church considers it heretical, though it was certainly popular in some part of the world
>>811683
>I'm pretty sure the church considers it heretical]
The Pope is an Argentine Jesuit, though.
>>811695
And I am pretty sure he has denounced it at some point or another
>>811713
It's tolerated. I went to a very mainline Catholic high school in America and they taught us about liberation theology junior year.
>>811568
>the founder of Liberation Theology
You mean the KGB?
http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2015/05/former-communist-spy-kgb-created-catholic-liberation-theology/
>>811683
If the Pope considered it heretical, he wouldn't invite the founder to the Vatican (which he did), he'd say repent of your heresy or be excommunicated.
