academic freedom Atheism Darwinist rhetorical tactics Evolutionary materialism's amorality Media Manipulation, Agit-Prop &/or Lawfare Science, worldview issues/foundations and society

Clips illustrating the state of Gender Studies

Spread the love

These clips are taken from a video that was recently pointed to by CY and which I (with help of UD) embedded here. We need to ponder what is happening with our civilisation under the impact of evolutionary materialism and its fellow travellers up to and including cultural marxist agendas (also cf. here), so pardon some painful reading:

How have we come to a pass such as this?

Schaeffer (suitably modified) has a suggestion or two:

Where also the seven mopuntains of influence perspective championed by Wallnau et al (again as adapted) may also help us see how the community is shaped by influences such as this branch of cultural marxism, aka “critical studies”:

What should we then do?

This may help:

Again, let us ponder. END

12 Replies to “Clips illustrating the state of Gender Studies

  1. 1
    kairosfocus says:

    Clips illustrating the state of gender studies. These have to be seen to be believed. KF

  2. 2
    News says:

    2. Not hard to believe if you pay taxes in a Western world jurisdiction. Look at it like this, kairosfocus:

    We keep really, really stupid people out of the STEM subjects where they might actually harm someone. It’s a small price to pay for ensuring that the person giving out the meds knows where the decimal place should be.

    Anyone dumb enough to pay for this pile of doo-doo may not be smart enough for that.

  3. 3
    tgpeeler says:

    This is mind boggling. That adult human beings could be induced to utter such meaningless drivel and apparently put it on paper staggers one’s imagination. All in the cause of higher education. ha ha ha ha.

  4. 4
    Eugen says:

    Great career of working in coffee shops is waiting for gender studies graduates 😀

  5. 5
    News says:

    But sadly, Eugen at 4, many of these people will have contracted serious debt believing that they would be taught something of value. And they are likely to be mad as stink at the rest of us because we can’t see any use in this stuff. And they may want to take it out on us. Violence may follow.

  6. 6
    kairosfocus says:

    News, competent career guidance? KF

  7. 7
    News says:

    kairosfocus at 6: Competent career advice?: Gosh, just from what I have seen: 1. Go for STEM. 2. Study. 3. Stay away from drugs and anyone in general who does not have any clear idea why they are alive. Other ideas?

  8. 8
    kairosfocus says:

    News, what happened to high school level career guidance courses, aptitude assessments, counselling and more? Not everyone is going to earn a professional, advanced math-heavy degree. And some degrees as illustrated have little serious substance nor are they equipping people to think at a serious level. I understand marxist academic politics all too well, but setting people up for frustration and failure like this is inexcusable. KF

  9. 9
    kmidpuddle says:

    We have always had fields of study that had little prospect of career. Shit, I have two degrees in marine biology. From Guelph. A city about as far away from an ocean as you can get. But we always had degrees in arts, psychology, philosophy, none of which had much in the way of career prospects. Then there was comparative religion, English literature, languages and journalism.

  10. 10
    News says:

    kairosfocus at 8, frustrated and failed people can be dangerous too. My compatriot Mark Steyn:

    https://www.steynonline.com/7916/the-seduction-of-violence

    They get all the madder when the rest of the world just wants to go on with our (possibly less crappy?) lives.

    I think alumni will need to start speaking out on what the U’s are turning out these days.

  11. 11
    kairosfocus says:

    Notice, no-one is brazen enough to try to justify the pattern of thought seen in the clips above? Ask yourself, very soberingly, how such gets institutionalised and entrenched. KF

  12. 12
    kairosfocus says:

    A: Try, Cultural Marxism (aka “Critical Studies/Theory”), e.g.:

    We are, in Marx’s terms, “an ensemble of social relations” and we live our lives at the core of the intersection of a number of unequal social relations based on hierarchically interrelated structures which, together, define the historical specificity of the capitalist modes of production and reproduction and underlay their observable manifestations. [Martha E. Gimenez, Marxism and Class, Gender and Race: Rethinking the Trilogy.]

    As in, surprise — not. (This should only be surprising to one who thought all forms of Marxism met their end with the fall of the Berlin Wall and the collapse of the Soviet Union.)

    Let the intro to the Standford Enc of Phil on Critical Theory speak for itself:

    Critical Theory has a narrow and a broad meaning in philosophy and in the history of the social sciences. “Critical Theory” in the narrow sense designates several generations of German philosophers and social theorists in the Western European Marxist tradition known as the Frankfurt School. According to these theorists, a “critical” theory may be distinguished from a “traditional” theory according to a specific practical purpose: a theory is critical to the extent that it seeks human “emancipation from slavery”, acts as a “liberating … influence”, and works “to create a world which satisfies the needs and powers” of human beings (Horkheimer 1972, 246). Because such theories aim to explain and transform all the circumstances that enslave human beings, many “critical theories” in the broader sense have been developed. They have emerged in connection with the many social movements that identify varied dimensions of the domination of human beings in modern societies. In both the broad and the narrow senses, however, a critical theory provides the descriptive and normative bases for social inquiry aimed at decreasing domination and increasing freedom in all their forms.

    Critical Theory in the narrow sense has had many different aspects and quite distinct historical phases that cross several generations, from the effective start of the Institute for Social Research in the years 1929–1930, which saw the arrival of the Frankfurt School philosophers and an inaugural lecture by Horkheimer, to the present. Its distinctiveness as a philosophical approach that extends to ethics, political philosophy, and the philosophy of history is most apparent when considered in light of the history of the philosophy of the social sciences. Critical Theorists have long sought to distinguish their aims, methods, theories, and forms of explanation from standard understandings in both the natural and the social sciences. Instead, they have claimed that social inquiry ought to combine rather than separate the poles of philosophy and the social sciences: explanation and understanding, structure and agency, regularity and normativity. Such an approach, Critical Theorists argue, permits their enterprise to be practical in a distinctively moral (rather than instrumental) sense. They do not merely seek to provide the means to achieve some independent goal, but rather (as in Horkheimer’s famous definition mentioned above) seek “human emancipation” in circumstances of domination and oppression . . .

    It should be obvious that to be stigmatised as an oppressor or enabler thereof creates an open door to polarisation and dismissal, trapping those indoctrinated in such thought in a radical paradigm. This practically invites setting up crooked yardsticks which then lock out inconvenient truths that do not fit the scheme.

    Giminez’s discussion of a triad, class, gender and race then uncomfortably echoes what has been driving our headlines and talking heads for decades.

    The only real way to break such is to force the crooked yardstick to confront plumbline truths that are of independent character and which expose the critical fallacies in the system. Nigh on thirty years ago, Communism collapsed as a global institution because it suffered a fatal collision with economic realities pointed out since the 1920’s.

    That sort of timeline is sobering, a generation-length battle for the soul of our civilisation is inherently a daunting prospect.

    In our time, the obvious first challenge to any academic juggernaut is, can your frame of thought adequately ground the responsible, rational, morally governed freedom required for academic discourse to have any credibility?

    The only level this can be answered is world-roots, and no scheme of thought unable to bridge the IS-OUGHT gap at this level will be sound. This includes, most directly, anything pivoting on evolutionary materialist scientism and/or its fellow travellers. (In recent weeks here at UD, we have seen how that includes toying around with versions of Taoism, not just Modernist Theology, Post-Modernism, Neo-Paganism and the like.)

    By contrast, it is readily shown that

    After centuries of debates and assessment of alternatives per comparative difficulties, there is in fact just one serious candidate to be such a grounding IS: the inherently good creator God, a necessary and maximally great being worthy of ultimate loyalty and the reasonable responsible service of doing the good in accord with our manifestly evident nature. (And instantly, such generic ethical theism answers also to the accusation oh this is “religion”; that term being used as a dirty word — no, this is philosophy. If you doubt this, simply put forth a different candidate that meets the required criteria and passes the comparative difficulties test: _________ . Likewise, an inherently good, maximally great being will not be arbitrary or deceitful etc, that is why such is fully worthy of ultimate loyalty and the reasonable, responsible service of doing the good in accord with our manifestly evident nature. As a serious candidate necessary being, such would be eternal and embedded in the frame for a world to exist at all. Thus such a candidate is either impossible as a square circle is impossible due to mutual ruin of core characteristics, or else it is actual. For simple instance no world is possible without two-ness in it, a necessary basis for distinct identity.

    But you see, in too many minds, God is the ultimate oppressor to be liberated from.

    Only a hard collision with reality will suffice to break such, especially when it has become deeply institutionalised across many of the citadels that dominate the commanding heights of our civilisation.

    Welcome to the kulturkampf that is already in progress.

    KF

Leave a Reply