BryanM wrote:These are all interconnected as part of a wider suppression effort. There are things like how teachers can't even admit that they're gay to their students, that would humanize the gays too much after all.
I'm sure the backlash to this insanity is going to catch a lot of harmless people in its wake. The American deep south being what it is, I'm not surprised at all to hear the reactionaries are having a field day.
Sengoku Strider wrote:BIL wrote:I trust you have read it in full?
Oh heck no, I'm not multi-threading here unless you're paying. I'm union. I have a dedicated allocation of hours.
I'd hope you'd read an argument you're acting as a proponent of, however casually.
I also recommend Cruising Utopia, cited in that same post, to appreciate the full fucking, sucking, fisting depth of the authors' ideological moorings.
I'm sure I've got the gist, the paper in question brings it and its author up like 20 times.
Having read their work, and your posts, I think you're overlooking a great deal.
But honestly, that's not that unusual for the field. It's adults talking to adults, in an area where talking around sex rather than directly about it becomes kind of pointless.
It's the comparative literature folks who are the true degenerates. At least these people are talking about actual sex, not fisting similes or whatever.
The mutual analingus society that is Western academia, and the even more deranged clown-show it's become over the last ~15 years, isn't the issue in this particular case. The trouble is, as always, its unchecked overspill into mean old reality, with its boring things like consequence and repercussion. David Reimer, the poor bastard, is a decent shorthand here.
This is where history kicks in, it doesn't need to be viewed as abnormal or marginal at all. There have been plenty of societies throughout history where it wasn't. Hell, some of them were apparently even Islamic.
You could've cited present-day India and its Hijras (and perhaps, for balance, India's horrific contempt for women's rights). It doesn't change the innately fringe quality of the queer milieu. Which isn't some condemnation on my part, in case I need to stress that. Albinos are an outlier, as well. In parts of Africa, they're hunted down by witch doctors for their organs. I'm about as impressed by calls to ban gay marriage or shun queer people from public view as I am witch doctors. Or witch finders.
This doesn't necessitate the "queering" of children, and more than it does the "straightening" of them.
This really is one of those instances where the lines between state ideology of a particular time and place and formalized education become pretty clear once it's all laid out. The objections became much more pronounced once religious groups started seeing it as part of the shifting social sands of modernity undermining their influence. It was such a non/side issue that Jesus never even mentioned it once. This was a guy who found time to get in arguments with fig trees and diss people who told him to wash his hands before dinner for not putting their unruly children to death. He would have brought it up.
I'm a proponent of Cool Bro Jebus too. I don't think he'd have had anything to say about gays, certainly not chucking them off buildings. I think anyone who reads the canonical accounts of his life and teachings and comes away with that mindset is looking for pretext where it doesn't exist.
But even the coolest, broest Jebus says point-blank to send those who would corrupt children swimming with a brick. \(O_O)/
So I'm doubly bemused by this latest strawman. The human imperative to protect one's children from predators isn't some Christian innovation. It's not a Muslim one, either. It's quite literally as basic-bitch as it gets.
This is where reading would've ideally kicked in, as you may think I'm overreaching for the word "predator," when in reality, after an exceedingly charitable reading of this paper and the work it cites as its wellspring, it's more of a euphemism on my part.
The paper is soaked through in ideological activism, with the sexualisation of small children as its vector. There's no need to cherry pick when the entire tree is so easily felled.
This is one of those common misconceptions people have about academia. The ideological activism is fine if one is honest about it, a paper is
supposed to argue a point. It's when people try to pretend they're talking about social issues from some mystical place beyond space and time that you need to raise an eyebrow. Which these authors do not do:
That Paper wrote:We write this article from the standpoint of an education scholar and former elementary educator (Harper Keenan) and a doctoral student in media studies who is a DQSH queen and organizer (Lil Miss Hot Mess). Given these positions, we make no effort to hide our bias: we are both supporters of this programme, and Lil Miss Hot Mess is involved in its leadership. Our purpose, then, is to make use of our unique positions as scholar-practitioners to highlight the pedagogical elements of DQSH that may not be immediately obvious to its audiences.
Scholars acknowledged decades ago that no matter what you do, particularly where things overlap with the contemporary social sphere, you're going to be speaking from one place or another that's going to be political (ie. objectionable) to someone. The issue here isn't whether the paper is trying to effect change in society, that's literally their job and the point of the work in the first place. The place to interrogate a paper is with the logic behind the individual arguments they're making.
The fuck am I reading
1] "Psh! These commoners haven't read the literature!"
2] "Psh! Imagine these commoners, reading the literature!"
I'm quite aware of academia's context, and the Bacchanalian excesses they're tailored to accommodate. I've contributed a few myself, prior to flying the coop in a cloud of dried lube. The issue, once again, is the parachuting of what we euphemistically refer to as adult entertainers into small children's classrooms, under the guise of a humanitarian mission to avert "genocide."
Unlike the last word of the preceding paragraph, this isn't metaphor, or theory, or rhetoric. That's literally what is being proposed here, and subsequently, being done. It's pure activism, or "praxis," I suppose (where's my astroglide gone?).
That the
"homophobia" angle is the most cynical of chaff would be obvious, even to those who haven't done DQSH the credit of reading their manifesto. We've had decades of that, over here.
"Why are the police ignoring organised gangs of Pakistani child-rapists?" "What did you say about Islam, bigot?!"
That bubble did eventually burst, after atrocious cost. Actually, that's the wrong metaphor. It was more like a vomiting up by a body politic wracked with nausea, in defiance of the to-this-day addled brain.
Having read DQSH? Batting away strawmen of civil rights struggles and religious persecutions aside, they are refreshingly blunt. An extremist minority within a minority is aggressively pursuing direct access to small children via the schools. That's a "yikes" from me, Redditbro, and it's a "yikes" from a vast, multi-partisan swathe of other parents (that pesky basic-bitchery again), amounting to Current Year: a horrible backlash that's going to leave my happy 90s/00s world in ashes, because some terminally smug fuckwits gone insane on their own fumes escaped the university's romper room and got into the real world, and freighted their opposite numbers unending trainloads of bloody red meat.
As with Bryan's point re: the overturning of universal abortion access down in Burgerland, we've gone well beyond theory at this point. This is more like watching shit burn down in real-time.
Ha, lmao, yeah, imagine reading things!
80% of people only read headlines, and I'd bet the number of of academic journal readers who have time to read beyond an abstract for things not directly related to their specialization is much lower than that. In a field like that one, putting saucy words on the first page is the equivalent of clickbait.
Reading is fundamental.
).
