What did she mean by this?
- Home
- Board: /his/ - History & Humanities
- Reading: What did she mean by this?
What did she mean by this?
She meant to say
>I have autism
It's not tha complicated
>the notion that there is some sort of fundamental self or ego is such a masculinized, objectivist position
As always, feminists are gravitating towards collectivism and away from individual freedom and autonomy.
>There is no fixed, or fundamental self/identity. I think that's just resistance to change via fear of the "other", that is which is not status quo
Completely in line with Sweden's "feminist foreign policy" (doing nothing) and feminism's limp "acceptance" of terrorists into their country, because having any opinions or sense of self preservation at all is masculine and therefore evil.
>>358945
>>359262
The first part threw me off a bit. I'm not sure why she felt the need to throw in the random feminist statement. But the latter part makes a lot of sense. It seems to me she's saying that as people gain new experiences, that our horizons expand and views can change. So we're potentially in a constant state of change and therefore may not always be the same "person" depending on how you define self.
>>358945
Now that's some "play pretend intellectualism". Why do people keep throwing all these fancy words thinking it'll make them look smart.
>>358945
>You're who you are by what you do girl!! Not by what someone says about you! Fuck the haters!
She just made her truism sound super deep(tm) with feminist undertones.
Also:
>metaphysically
>>358945
She's basically describing buddhism/daoism, although that 'masculinized' part is some retarded she she added.
>>360046
This. The first part was just a way to shoehorn 'fuck the patriarchehrarjgjarg' in there.
What she's trying to say is that she is a shitty writer. She's not trying to convey anything of substance, she's making a vain attempt to convince you that you are in the presence of a deep and thoughtful mind. These philosophy types are attracted to bullshit sophistry the way flies are attracted to shit.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iGBwqYp4Oxc
>>358945
>Metaphysically, the notion that there is some sort of fundamental self or ego is such a masculinized, objectivist position.
She's right to the extent that such a notion is inseparable from patriarchal society. Then again, calling it objectivist is complete nonsense, what could be more subjectivist than foundational subjectivity? Also, calling it masculinized seems lime a reversal of cause and effect, the primacy of the subject is constitutinal for masculinity, not vice versa.
>>358945
As has been said before she's trying to herself look smart by first posting feminist tripe and then following up with something that is actually insightful.
Anybody who says "disregard this cause feminism" should be ignored
her post is a textbook example of the form being bigger than content
