I don't have a very strong investment, so I'm not defending the OP so much
as trying to figure out what the argument is. :) I don't think her argument
is incorrect, even if I don't necessarily agree with (or care about) her
conclusions.
[[Welp, post by email did not work, here's the rest of it:]]
it's queer studies, generally, and it doesn't just study lgbt people (im not arguing with you, but with their points as outlined by you) it also studies a whole ton of other things that no other department will touch
Huh, like what? Genuine question, bc I may skim queer theory books but I never even took a class in it so my knowledge is v basic.
why is radical/institutionalized a dichotomy? do people stop being radical when they join college?
I should have said more: I personally find my third bullet point to be a boring discussion, because I don't think things need to be radical to be moral. (In a 'leftists arguing on the internet about right and wrong' sense of the word 'moral,' I mean.) But my understanding of the argument is that the master's tools will never disassemble the master's house, and/or the revolution will not be funded[1]. People don't stop being radical when they go to college (whatever it means to "be radical"), but going to college (and taking a queer theory class, or teaching one) is not a radical act. And I don't have a problem with that! But not everyone agrees.
[1] by government/private foundations/philanthropy/mutual funds/any other source of income for universities. [In the US,] FAFSA would not be giving kids loans to study queer theory if the federal government thought it posed a serious threat to the kyriarchy.
queer can be and is a word of the streets and a word of academics and the fact that it can occupy both places simultaneously without losing meaning and worth is the source of much of its power, imo
I'm not sure what this means; can you give an example?
I can't think of a good way to say this, so I'll say it poorly: it's a bit rude to call someone's personal feelings & experiences "iffy." I'm pretty sure it's just that tone is hard on the internet, and I am definitely not immune to those problems. :)
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
momijizukamori
no subject
Date: 2019-02-22 11:08 pm (UTC)I don't have a very strong investment, so I'm not defending the OP so much as trying to figure out what the argument is. :) I don't think her argument is incorrect, even if I don't necessarily agree with (or care about) her conclusions.
[[Welp, post by email did not work, here's the rest of it:]]
Huh, like what? Genuine question, bc I may skim queer theory books but I never even took a class in it so my knowledge is v basic.
I should have said more: I personally find my third bullet point to be a boring discussion, because I don't think things need to be radical to be moral. (In a 'leftists arguing on the internet about right and wrong' sense of the word 'moral,' I mean.) But my understanding of the argument is that the master's tools will never disassemble the master's house, and/or the revolution will not be funded[1]. People don't stop being radical when they go to college (whatever it means to "be radical"), but going to college (and taking a queer theory class, or teaching one) is not a radical act. And I don't have a problem with that! But not everyone agrees.
[1] by government/private foundations/philanthropy/mutual funds/any other source of income for universities. [In the US,] FAFSA would not be giving kids loans to study queer theory if the federal government thought it posed a serious threat to the kyriarchy.
I'm not sure what this means; can you give an example?
I can't think of a good way to say this, so I'll say it poorly: it's a bit rude to call someone's personal feelings & experiences "iffy." I'm pretty sure it's just that tone is hard on the internet, and I am definitely not immune to those problems. :)