Tumgik
#essentialism
man-squared · 1 year
Text
One day people will all come to the conclusion that reducing manhood to "evil, bad" and indirectly suggesting that "all men should die" leads to people staying in the closet far longer than they should.
And maybe one day they'll apologize for forcing trans men and other queer men to stay in the closet (which unfortunately I highly doubt), but we got a lot of redfem (alternative spelling) shit to wade through and toss out before we ever get there and it'll be a while before it spreads to the rest of society.
4K notes · View notes
nochd · 6 months
Text
This came across my dash via the #lgbt tag yesterday. I don't want to engage with the OP because that would get me into fights on radfem tumblr and I don't have the energy for that. But the post itself I think is worth answering, just because it's so neatly and exactly wrong.
(Not that my answer is going to spread very far, because I have 37 non-bot followers, of whom I think roughly 35.5 are just here for the nude photos. But anyway.)
Even if I agree just for argument's sake that the existence of intersex people proves that some people can have "nonbinary" sexes, or "third" sexes, and that "sex is a spectrum," how does that have any relevance to people who are not intersex? Like okay, let's "agree" for the moment that intersex people are something other than male or female. How does that make YOU, as a person who is not intersex, something other than male or female? Saying that intersex people's existence somehow makes sex "complicated" for you specifically is like saying that the issue of whether or not you can hear is "complicated" because some other people who are not you suffer from hearing loss or deafness. Like sorry but for 99% of the human population it is not "more complicated" than born with perfectly normal male genitalia = male and born with perfectly normal female genitalia = female, and chances are you fall into that 99%. Sex is not a social construct or a nebulous enigma of a concept. It is not debatable and made up in the manner that gender is. You cannot philosophize about whether there are two sexes any more than you can philosophize about whether humans have two kidneys. Someone having a missing or malformed kidney or accessory kidneys does not change the fact that humans as a species have two kidneys. Humans are gonochoric just like nearly all other animal species on Earth.
Let's start with the arithmetic. If 99% people are of binary sex, that leaves 1% of people who aren't. There are approximately 8 billion humans on Earth. 1% of 8 billion is 80 million -- about sixteen times the population of my entire country. Even just the number of intersex Americans is something like two-thirds the population of my country. This is not a negligible number of people.
There's a deeper error here, one that goes to the root not just of this misunderstanding but of many. Biology is always complicated, at every scale and at every level of explanation. It's messy, it's fuzzy, and it's always bottom-up, never top-down. Everything biological is the way it is because it grew that way. Biology never does the same thing twice.
Why does it seem like it does? Because, of all the ways you can arrange the parts of a living body, only an astonishingly tiny fraction of them actually make a living body. Any genetic mutation that nudges an organism outside of that fraction dies out and doesn't get passed on. Embryonic development is a gruelling tight-rope walk over a vast pit of non-existence.
Now for most of the body's systems, evolution has only had to produce one arrangement that works and survives. There's not an alternative plumbing plan where the oesophagus goes to the lungs and the trachea to the stomach. But for the reproductive system, evolution has to allow for two arrangements that work and survive, and it has to grow them both from the same starter kit.
What it does, therefore, is grow a body plan that works with a continuum of possible arrangements that includes both of those two. Various other points on the continuum may or may not be capable of producing viable gametes, but they're all survivable.
What biology doesn't do -- what biology never ever does -- is run new products on a conveyor belt stamping them into shape with cookie-cutters. The only things made that way are artificial constructs.
166 notes · View notes
librarycards · 3 months
Note
hi!! do you have any recommended readings on why sex based oppression is not real? I'm trying to explain to a friend but she doesn't get it
yes! assuming your friend isn't an academic, these readings do well at debunking "sex-based oppression" by destabilizing "sex" 1) as a category of analysis, period and 2) as an axis of privilege/oppression, and are available to mainstream audiences
The Transfeminist Manifesto, Emi Koyama (with emphasis on a critical intersex lens)
Against Sex Class Theory, Nsambu Za Suekama (with attention to the enforcement of sex with/by/through/as white supremacy)
Gender Critical = Gender Conservative, Sara Ahmed (Ahmed takes down terf claims that trans rights somehow threaten 'sex-based' rights gained for '''females'''
From ‘sex-based rights’ to ‘become ungovernable’: from supremacy to solidarity, Ali Phipps (genealogizes "sex" as a contemporary category and exposes it as unstable + a tool of patriarchal domination rather than reason for it)
hope this helps!
51 notes · View notes
diaryofaphilosopher · 2 months
Text
The difficulty with theories of essentialism and exclusiveness, or with barriers and sides, is that they give rise to polarizations that absolve and forgive ignorance and demagogy more than they enable knowledge [...] If you know in advance that the African or Iranian or Chinese or Jewish or German experience is fundamentally integral, coherent, separate, and therefore comprehensible only to Africans, Iranians, Chinese, Jews, or Germans, you first of all posit as essential something which, I believe, is both historically created and the result of interpretation -namely the existence of Africanness, Jewishness, or Germanness, or for that matter Orientalism and Occidentalism. And second, you are likely as a consequence to defend the essence or experience itself rather than promote full knowledge of it and its entanglements and dependencies on other knowledges. As a result, you will demote the different experience of others to a lesser status.
— Edward W. Said, Culture and Imperialism.
Follow Diary of a Philosopher for more quotes!
40 notes · View notes
philosophybits · 1 year
Quote
Where common sense stops, metaphysics must take another stride. "We have seen," it says, "many instances where at first glance suffering seemed absurd and needless, but where later on a profound significance was revealed. Thus it may be that what we cannot explain may find its explanation in time. ... The less a man has fulfilled in experience, the more in him remains of unsatisfied passion and desire, the greater are the grounds for thinking that his essence cannot be destroyed, but must manifest itself somehow or other in the universe. Voluntary asceticism and self-denial, such common human phenomena, help to solve the riddle. Nobody compels a man, he imposes suffering and abstinence on himself. It is an incomprehensible instinct, but still an instinct which, rooted in the depths of our nature, prompts us to a decision repugnant to reason: renounce life, save yourself. ... And he who has endured most suffering, most privation, will awaken in the afterwards most keenly alive." Such long speeches metaphysics whispers to us. And we repeat them, often leaving out the "it may be."
Lev Shestov, All Things Are Possible
160 notes · View notes
sheisadykewomon · 2 years
Text
It's funny because the lesbians claiming that I'm a bisexual because I don't believe in the sexological notion of inborn sexual orientation (originated by men for male benefit), are actually revealing that their position on lesbianism is ideological as well. If you don't agree with their ideology, then you're "not a real lesbian", which is the No true Scotsman fallacy. I am a lesbian, only I don't agree with you, so therefore one of us must be wrong about what being a lesbian is. If I am a lesbian, but I don't believe in a sexual essence which allegedly makes me one, then I am breaking the first rule of that ideology, which is that a lesbian is essentially lesbian which is why she's a lesbian, a circular definition, and because I don't believe in an essence, I am not a lesbian. Then their argument is that of course I don't have the "lesbian essence"; they do, and I wouldn't know what it's like to be a lesbian because I don't have the essence -- I am "admitting" I don't have the lesbian essence. But if I am not essentially lesbian, then how am I a lesbian? Clearly, I must be bisexual. This logic makes no sense. How can you tell who has the essence and who doesn't? What's the test? In their eyes, there is no other way to be a lesbian other than to have some undefinable, unlocatable, invisible lesbian essence. This is an illogical, ahistorical, and depoliticized notion of lesbianism, that robs lesbians of our potential political power and our personal power. It demeans and degrades lesbian intelligence and agency. Belief in a "lesbian essence" is no good for lesbians.
234 notes · View notes
Note
Is essentialism a foundational metaphysics for a conservative worldview?
It is telling that the existentialist philosophers, Jean-Paul Sartre and Simone De Beauvoir, were firmly leftist in their politics.
I find conservatism more compelling within an essentialist framework, personally.
Note To Followers: This is a technical Philosophy question so the explanation gets slightly technical.
By "Conservative" here I believe you mean to refer to a freedom-centered political perspective, so yes I would agree with you. Such a perspective involves timeless abstract principles of individual liberty. Communism/Socialism however with its roots in Marxian Dialectic rejects the idea of timeless ideals. Here, all things are transitional. Subjects (whether individual or collective) seek out their own self realization through a process of continuous discovery. The truth spontaneously emerges. So we can see an affinity between Marxism and Existentialism there. Of course the focus on the individual ego in Existentialism had to eventually give way to a focus upon the collective in European philosophy (first under Structuralism then under Post-Structuralism).
It should be noted that many people during Sartre's time pointed out the contradiction between his Existentialism's (ontological) theme of individual freedom, and the compulsory nature of state Socialism. Sartre would naturally respond to this charge by asserting the complete opposite. He would trot out Marx's notion of Alienation and insist that it was in fact the free market system ("Capitalism" ) that tramples upon human freedom.
But I don't think that indeterminacy and uncertainty are a solid foundation for political freedom, it requires a stable essence.
20 notes · View notes
trixybobbitt · 1 month
Text
I'd like to take a moment to talk about Essentialism. In the simplest terms possible, Essentialism says that everything has a core aspect. An essence. It argues that a person's essence determines their behavior. It says a person did not simply steal, they are a thief. Essentialism is problematic because it oversimplifies complex human behavior and reduces individuals to one-dimensional caricatures. It becomes a tool for fascism, breaking down nuanced understandings and fueling bigotry. For example, if someone has had a negative experience with a person named Matt, it's tempting to attribute that experience to some inherent "Matt-ness" rather than considering the individual circumstances that led to the conflict. Essentialism also aligns conveniently with ideas of criminality and punishment, perpetuating the notion that certain individuals inherently deserve harsh treatment. This perspective ignores the systemic factors that often contribute to criminal behavior, such as poverty and lack of opportunity. In reality, the criminal justice system frequently creates crime by perpetuating cycles of poverty and discrimination. The notion that we can eradicate crime by simply getting rid of criminals is a dangerous and ineffective oversimplification. Tumblr, in particular, has struggled to address dogpiles, which are often policed by punishing the accounts that initiate them. This approach, however, fails to address the underlying issues of large follower counts and a lack of effective moderation tools. Even the CEO of Tumblr, amidst succumbing to the process that turns one harassment into another, had a brief moment of lucidity, realizing that the tools available to the user do not empower them to manage this mob cascade.
7 notes · View notes
troydooly · 4 months
Text
Tumblr media
Just take some time to relax and ponder what is most important; what is a priority… not priorities!
We fall into the trap of being followers, yes, even so-called leaders!
From the stage over the last few weeks, I’ve heard well-meaning speakers state, “List your priorities,” “Your priorities are never in conflict,” and many other renditions of this strategy.
And yet, until the mid-1900s, there was no plural form of the word. From the first recovered use in the 1400s until 1900, it was just a Priority.
Know your history and take some chill time to grasp what your priority should be fully!
In 2024, focus on what is essential for you and yours. This will allow you to slow down and achieve what is truly most important for you.
To dig deeper, read the books Essentialism or Effortitless by Greg McKeown as a starting point!
9 notes · View notes
lordadmiralfarsight · 7 months
Text
Essentialism, it's bad even if it looks left wing
Essentialism, its a conceptual base for a LOT of shitty things.
Racism is a variety of essentialism, where you are considered confined to the essential qualities or flaws of your "race" (whatever bullshit is put in the word). It creates a veneer of superiority based on skin color/ethnicity/whatever to comfort the adherant's ego, make them more amenable to the professing populist's ambitions and occult one basic reality : people of all color and origins can be wondrous geniuses who bring amazing advancements to humanity or terminally awkward dumbasses (and sometimes both at once).
Classism and casteism is the same, evaluating the social value of someone based on the essential qualities or flaws of their social class or cast. These two rests a lot on tradition and the natural tendency to social endogamy and self-reproduction through education. But in the end, the "superiority" of the higher social strata class or cast is attributed to essential qualities instead of access to better education and learning materials.
But when it comes to sexism, the essentialism seems to, most of the time, be only recognized one way in many keft wing circles, at least on the surface (which is the most visible part). What prompted this? I saw a post on the Barbie movie on this here hellsite that quoted a bunch of tweets. Up to the end, it was fairly feel good, cute, positive. Even if most of the quoted tweets seemed to have missed the commentary on gender relations that is apparently part of the movie.
I will be upfront, I have not seen the movie. Not by ideology, but simply because I do not feel the urge. But from my understanding, the situation of the Kens is ... not ideal. It could be better.
Most of the tweets did not mention that, focusing on the female aspect. And then there was this :
Tumblr media
So, over generalisation based on gender elevating one gender as sweet and kind and non-violent, just vibing, while the other is decried as brutish, oppressive and violent. No nuance, just big homogenous blocks. That is incredibly essentialist. That is also a kind of take that feeds Far Right pundits like nobody's business.
Think a bit on the underlying philosophy. What's being said isn't "inequalities are bad and both genders should be equal", it's "the wrong gender is in power and everything would be perfect if gender relations were switched around". That take doesn't have a problem with the system, but with who is in control. When the system is unjust, changing who controls it or benefits from it doesn't make it just.
And just to pre-empt : yes, I'm a man. So what? I am not obligated to suffer for the actions of other dick-owners.
15 notes · View notes
man-squared · 1 year
Text
Dunking on men who show any emotions or try to talk through their emotions is very antithetical to feminism.
You can't be upset about the seeming lack of emotions and communication from men and then mock them when they cry or call them manipulative when they simply want to vent to you as friends.
You can't want to eradicate gender roles and stereotypes but suppress men back into them.
I see people who self-id as feminists do this all the time, and I just don't see how this works for their cause.
1K notes · View notes
charliejaneanders · 1 year
Quote
The 1980s and 1990s were this hotbed of essentialist feminism, and there were these big mainstream books by people like Deborah Tannen, who wrote You Just Don’t Understand and John Gray, who wrote Men are from Mars, Women are from Venus. There was a really popular discourse, basically saying that men are men and women are women, and you just can't do anything about it. And men are always going to be kind of selfish jerks and women are always going to be kind of codependent and nurturing and needy, and emotionally open and kind of unable to be in charge of anything.
Our Opinions Are Correct Episode 88: Gender Essentialism
32 notes · View notes
librarycards · 9 days
Text
yeah I think there is an understandable tendency to equate all essentialisms with bioessentialism, especially considering the application of the false doctrine of “sex” to practices of gender(ing), but what that leaves out are the myriad violent forms of social / cultural / etc essentialism equally if not more insidious and difficult to uproot, at least in the area of cisheterosexism.
e.g. accusations of predatoriness are more accurately ascribed to understandings of “toxic” social environment cultivated by a critical mass of “antisocial” actors, or even the fundamental belief that a set of “feminine” (and always-already white) values must be endemic to certain purified socialities (though not necessarily to certain bodies) and it is for this reason that the aforementioned bodies must be protected from supposed contamination
22 notes · View notes
ramyeonpng · 3 months
Quote
For example, if at this moment, getting rid of everything that doesn’t matter meant you could keep everything that you own, including all 32 Cabbage Patch Kid dolls, then I define that as still aligning with the values of minimalism (others might disagree).
#essentialism
5 notes · View notes
eggwhiteswithspinach · 9 months
Quote
Remember that if you don’t prioritize your life someone else will.
#Greg Mckeown (Essentialism)
6 notes · View notes
gastromancer · 1 year
Text
Tumblr media
me when i’m soooooo gender critical and anti-gender roles and totally reject the patriarchal idea that “sex” dictates social/behavioral ‘nature’. me when i’m totally a radical who rejects oppressive ideologies & schemas and i totally don’t buy into that fascist idea certain peoples can be “inherently violent” or “inherently lesser” by virtue of an ‘innate biology’.
10 notes · View notes