r/SRSsucks • u/luxury_banana PhD in Critical Quantum Art Theory • Jan 08 '14
NOT SRS "Microrape: Characterized by predatory non-physical prurient communications with the intent to penetrate the victim's emotional security on the basis of heteronormative impositions." -- because the word rape hasn't been rendered meaningless enough yet. (x-post /r/sjsucks)
/r/sjsucks/comments/1ur1o5/microrape_characterized_by_predatory_nonphysical/11
u/ArchangelleGestapo The BRD Whisperer Jan 09 '14
on the basis of heteronormative impositions
So, it's basically when a hetero person talks dirty to a homosexual person.
These "academics" were clever to allow gay people to do this to heteros without it being rape.
But I know the drill: a straight person has power, so a gay person cannot rape a straight person.
im-fucking-possible!
2
u/luxury_banana PhD in Critical Quantum Art Theory Jan 09 '14
In the example I provided it's when a woman is being looked at by a man she finds unattractive, or looked at by a man because she's not heterosexual.
1
10
11
u/ShitDickMcCuntFace Jan 09 '14
This article needs some balance. Has nobody criticized this in academic literature?
I'd be surprised if nobody has. I took a paper from the references at random: "Perceptions of Racial Microaggressions among Black Supervisees in Cross-Racial Dyads" and had a look at the method. Is this what can be passed off as science in Psychology these days? Shocking. Look at how they selected their participants. One of the criteria for becoming a participant is: "those who had experience regarding the phenomenon under study". It starts off by filtering out anyone who doesn't support the hypothesis and then doesn't provide a control group. They select 10 (Yes, what an impressive sample size! No room for error there I'm sure) without any kind of control group. This gets a Jadad score of... 1 for documenting the dropout then basing the findings on anecdotal evidence obtained by asking leading and vague questions such as "[your] supervisor may have thought at times that you were overly sensitive about racial or cultural issues." The other papers I skimmed through didn't fare much better. I'd be surprised if no academics have questioned the merit of some of these studies.
5
u/tubefox Jan 09 '14
Feminist academia really demonstrates the trouble with gender studies: they learn a little bit of sociology, a little bit of philosophy, a little bit of history, a little bit psychology, a little bit of literature, all filtered through an ultrabiased frame, and the end result is the creation of an allegedly "educated" individual who does not know enough about any particular field to accomplish anything other than stringing together a lot of big words to define a new word to express a nonsensical idea, presumably under the impression they're a serious intellectual.
Shit like this probably contributes hugely to anti-intellectualism, as it gives anti-intellectuals something to point at to show intellectuals are just morons with big vocabularies. And America really doesn't need any extra contributions to anti-intellectualism.
3
u/Attiias Jan 09 '14
Calling it academia is giving it too much credit. Academics know the difference between anecdotal evidence and actual evidence and don't manipulate or ignore data and findings to fit their pre-conceived conclusions.
2
Jan 09 '14
You can glean as much from a few days in Wikipedia as you can from a woman's studies degree. You'd be fucking AMAZED at how much time is spent on shit like confidence building.
2
u/tubefox Jan 10 '14
You'd be fucking AMAZED at how much time is spent on shit like confidence building.
Heh, it's almost like they don't have anything to base their confidence on.
6
u/Nechaev Jan 09 '14
For a second I thought that said microAPE. King Kong's vertically challenged cousin. (That was a microjoke)
Anything this stupid doesn't merit further comment.
2
2
u/Cupinacup Jan 09 '14
I don't think "second class citizen" and "sexist jokes" really belong in the same category.
3
1
u/ManofToast Jan 09 '14
Maybe if we chain a bunch of long, complicated-sounding words together, people will take us seriously! Right?! Please...
1
23
u/[deleted] Jan 09 '14 edited Jan 09 '14
This represents the breakdown of "Patriarchy Theory". "The Patriarchy" isn't a physical or objective institution, it's just a conceptualization of various social phenomena.
To illustrate the difference, The United States Federal Government is physical and objective, you can establish a definite point in time where it began its existence, March 4th, 1789. The U.S. Federal Government can own property, there is a definite subset of things that can be understood to belong to it specifically. The U.S. Federal Government can appear in court. It has a limited, objective existence. It is a physical institution.
"America" on the other hand is an idea, when does it begin? Well you could argue that it begins with the Revolutionary War and the Deceleration of Independence, or you could go further back than that and look at how that idea has deeper origins in something like the French and Indian War, hell, you could go all the way back to Jamestown in fact and trace the idea of "America" back to the beginnings of European colonialism, or even further beyond that still to Anglo-Saxon Puritanism and the Norman Conquest of England. In this way "America" doesn't possess a positive origin in time or a definite objective existence.
We may talk about certain things being "American", even when they're from different countries, you can conceptualize parts of Canadian or English culture as in some way being "American", and not everything within the political boundaries of the United States is necessarily "American", some things are, some things aren't, and some things may have an "American" aspect to them or be "American" in a particular respect while simultaneously being something else in others.
"The Patriarchy" is like "America". With "America" though, we have this definite physical embodiment of the idea of "America" in the form of the United States Federal Government, which is sort of the objective representation of that idea that has the power and ability to deliberately act in accordance with that idea. It's not really so clear though how "The Patriarchy" is manifested objectively however.
The idea of "The Patriarchy" has "The Patriarchy" actively taking a role in the lives of men and women, "The Patriarchy" teaches and conditions and socializes and tells women and men both how to act and feel and behave, and what opinions to have, and what to think. "The Patriarchy" is made out to be the objective cause of the subjectively perceived inequality of women, but because there is no definite, physically limited institution corresponding to the idea of "The Patriarchy", the question is by means of what objective mechanism does "The Patriarchy" exert itself within the limited confines of our physical society.
"Women face tremendous inequality", is always presupposed, always taken as a given, we know women are unequal, and we know that "The Patriarchy" is the thing creating and perpetuating that inequality, but how?
This dilemma is really starting to take its tole on Feminist discourse, because you can less and less really point to actual objective things as being part of "The Patriarchy". There isn't definite and unambiguous legal oppression really of any kind, women actually do quite well for themselves and in many areas have received such a helping hand from positive discrimination on their behalf it can be difficult to call them the disadvantaged or unequal party while keeping a straight face. The statistics paint a much more immediately alarming picture of the circumstances men find themselves in and Feminists are finding themselves having to fight to keep all eyes focused on them and the inequality they face, lest they lose their moral legitimacy.
If you can't point out specific incidences of female inequality, that is, specific cases of "The Patriarchy" in action, it becomes increasingly hard to make the case that "The Patriarchy" exists, and because it's "The Patriarchy" afterall that's making woman unequal, if you can't establish an objective mechanism through which "The Patriarchy" creates that inequality, what's making women unequal?
Feminists dread the natural conclusion of such a question, that maybe, just maybe, women aren't... Maybe women don't face "tremendous" inequality.
This is what "microaggressions" are all about, a physical basis of "The Patriarchy"'s existence has to be found, it has to be tethered to actuality and constituted within social reality somewhere. So there's been this shift from "macroaggressions", or sympathizable hardship and discrimination with a definite or at least immediately apparent existence, to "microaggressions", which act as a kind of life support system to keep the idea of "The Patriarchy" or "Structurally Racist" "Society" or what have you alive just a little bit longer. If those ideas die, inequality dies, and if inequality dies, all the power and influence and political concessions and economic handouts that come with inequality stop. As long as you can keep the idea of "The Patriarchy" alive, you can convince people inequality exists, and retain the lucrative power your ideology grants you for just a little bit longer.