This is how I end up getting sucked in
Attended a mind-blowing lecture filled with so much international relations jargon that what the speaker was actually saying ended up being a slur of nonsensical terms strung together. Understandably, with a lecture title like “The Gendered Economies of War,” the speaker (Dr. Spike Peterson) was likely expecting an audience with some basic grasp of economics. I wonder: is that a reasonable assumption of not?
It’s pretty amazing how you can amass fourteen-some years of intellectual knowledge (not necessarily limited to what one is taught it “school”) and still find one adrift in a sea of words you’ve never heard before. That’s the downside of departmentally-focused studies, I think. I’m pretty sure I could research English lit. until I was blue in the face and still be baffled as to exactly what she meant when she talked about “the neoliberal agenda.”
[My notes, indeed, are four pages of scribbled what the fucks surrounded by a copious amount of question marks and exclamation points]
At any rate, few basic thoughts said aside due to lack of particular relevancy. More specifically, two words. One of which serves as the most versatile foul word that is not actually foul language. The other which, personally, often has a similar effect on me as the term “Islamic extremist” seems to have on many of my fellow Americans.
Agenda, next to “cunt” (in reference to women) and “nigger” (in reference to those termed “African Americans”), has to be the most insulting term in the English language. No. Really. It’s even hard to say something as simple as “So, what’s on the agenda?” without a curl of the lip, a sneer. Try it.
In the same vein, you can make any organization sound sinister by tacking “agenda” on to the end of it. “The gay agenda” sounds really threatening in ways that, say “the objectives of the LGBT group” doesn’t. Do they mean the same thing? More or less, yes. They both imply a plan - a certain set of ideological ideas that said interest group wants to accomplish. One just sounds hella scarier than the other.
I think this is largely because it creates an “us” and “them” mentality. It simplifies the group into one overarching term, the them. One can easily tack on the word “agenda” after any term (gay, leftist, ultra-conservative, pro-life, terrorist, socialist, corporate &c. &c.) to create the idea of a malignant presence. Why is it necessarily malignant? Because it unifies that group of people into a specific (radical!) group of people.
For instance, say the “socialist agenda.” Socialist is already a dirty word (with rarely any thought given to the meaning beyond “well, they’re like commies and commies suck!”) but combined with “agenda” it clumps all socialists together. Bad idea from the start - the issue is the one that comes up in a lot of attempts at categorization: people are defined by more than one trait. You may be a socialist but you could also be a fervent support of the democratic process, or a deeply moral human being, or an ardent volunteer for a local charity. However, by classifying something as having an “agenda” (there can only be one ideological agenda!) it seems we immediately jump to this conclusion that they are a unified front and they have a plan. Christ, we have got to fight against their agenda.
Moreover, how often do you see the word “agenda” used in a positive way?
[Agenda, in itself, really is a stupid word to tack on to the end of anything except in the most specific of cases. Merriam-Webster Online defines agenda as such:
1. A list or outline of things to be considered or done
2. An underlying often ideological plan or program
Well, dur. Any interest group is going to have an ideological plan. Any interest group is going to have a way to implement said plan. They wouldn’t exist if they did. A bit redundant, hm?]
&
Feminism. Much more simplistically (and personally) this word isolates me extremely quickly. I’m a little uncertain as to when, exactly, I started making this association, but I usually treat the idea of “feminism” with revulsion - the word has extremely unpleasant associations for me, because the first thing I think when I hear it is “I’m so sick of hearing about how men are terrible creatures!”
Secondly, of course, there is this issue (as lystellion commented to me):
Feminism is one of the oddest things because, from what little I know of it, it doesn't pick out anything coherent. It ranges from the eminently sensible to the utterly ridiculous.
And then there is the ever-popular excessive gendering of traits. Certainly there are conflicts between masculine/feminine perspective, and I’m not claiming that women have never been treated horrendously, but most feminism I’ve encountered seeks to tear down every aspect of that terrible masculine status quo without really defining what’s so “masculine” about it (other than the dominant party has always been male and therefore we have conformed to the male ideal of normality, but that’s making the presupposition that the masculine ideal of normality is drastically different from the feminine one).
And, of course, there’s always the subtle implication that “masculinity” is something inherently foul (or at least I’ve encountered that a lot). Seems just as sexist as the status quo, just in a different way.
At any rate, the point is attaching the word “feminism” to something makes me cringe. Personal reflection &c.
This event was followed by a meal at Curtis and a more general (and understandable) discussion not of feminism but of masculinity & femininity as they are defined. After something of a debate I think we came to the general conclusion that “masculine” traits and “feminine” traits are socially constructed and not universal cross-culturally (which … is pretty much common sense shh). Further, I applied some of Wittgenstein (aphorisms 65-69; ignore the commentary on the right) to this whole idea of “masculine” and “feminine.” And by “applied some of Wittgenstein” I mean I used the whole “family resemblance” thing. Because, really, what do all typically “masculine” traits have in common other than they have vaguely associated features. I don’t really think there’s a common essence of masculinity - especially considering how dependent the idea of masculinity is upon cultural context.
I … think I just made a lot of assumptions. Feel free to rip that apart.
At any rate we’re currently studying Romanticism in music history. I’ve come to the conclusion that this is one of my favorite eras to study, and that almost any creative figure active during the Romantic time period at the least lead an interesting (and likely depressing) life.
Music history, I might add, ended with me inserting the comment that “Byron had sex with anything that moved” at an extremely quiet point in the class.
Anyway, today was excellent. And I got all my work done, so win for that. Also, A on my rhetorical analysis.
Oh yeah.
Tagged by both lilian_cho & lovin_torture
a. list seven habits/quirks/facts about yourself
b. tag up to seven people to do the same
1. I have a tendency to read for too much into things.
2. I love studying the history behind the dead white males just as much as I like studying their contributions.
3. I really enjoy peeling potatoes.
4. I shamelessly appropriate phrases, terms, and abbreviations I like from others.
5. I love writing things out by hand rather than typing them. I especially adore taking notes.
6. One glass of coke will do to me the same thing an energy drink will do to most other people.
7. I compulsively fill out every meme I see, typically with no intention of actually posting the answers.
So tomorrow is everyone’s favorite holiday (well, technically today). For all of you determined to enjoy a holiday based off a pagan fertility rite, don’t let the anti-Valentine agenda get you down. As for myself, tomorrow Prince Hal is going to be my imaginary boyfriend (STFU).
It’s pretty amazing how you can amass fourteen-some years of intellectual knowledge (not necessarily limited to what one is taught it “school”) and still find one adrift in a sea of words you’ve never heard before. That’s the downside of departmentally-focused studies, I think. I’m pretty sure I could research English lit. until I was blue in the face and still be baffled as to exactly what she meant when she talked about “the neoliberal agenda.”
[My notes, indeed, are four pages of scribbled what the fucks surrounded by a copious amount of question marks and exclamation points]
At any rate, few basic thoughts said aside due to lack of particular relevancy. More specifically, two words. One of which serves as the most versatile foul word that is not actually foul language. The other which, personally, often has a similar effect on me as the term “Islamic extremist” seems to have on many of my fellow Americans.
Agenda, next to “cunt” (in reference to women) and “nigger” (in reference to those termed “African Americans”), has to be the most insulting term in the English language. No. Really. It’s even hard to say something as simple as “So, what’s on the agenda?” without a curl of the lip, a sneer. Try it.
In the same vein, you can make any organization sound sinister by tacking “agenda” on to the end of it. “The gay agenda” sounds really threatening in ways that, say “the objectives of the LGBT group” doesn’t. Do they mean the same thing? More or less, yes. They both imply a plan - a certain set of ideological ideas that said interest group wants to accomplish. One just sounds hella scarier than the other.
I think this is largely because it creates an “us” and “them” mentality. It simplifies the group into one overarching term, the them. One can easily tack on the word “agenda” after any term (gay, leftist, ultra-conservative, pro-life, terrorist, socialist, corporate &c. &c.) to create the idea of a malignant presence. Why is it necessarily malignant? Because it unifies that group of people into a specific (radical!) group of people.
For instance, say the “socialist agenda.” Socialist is already a dirty word (with rarely any thought given to the meaning beyond “well, they’re like commies and commies suck!”) but combined with “agenda” it clumps all socialists together. Bad idea from the start - the issue is the one that comes up in a lot of attempts at categorization: people are defined by more than one trait. You may be a socialist but you could also be a fervent support of the democratic process, or a deeply moral human being, or an ardent volunteer for a local charity. However, by classifying something as having an “agenda” (there can only be one ideological agenda!) it seems we immediately jump to this conclusion that they are a unified front and they have a plan. Christ, we have got to fight against their agenda.
Moreover, how often do you see the word “agenda” used in a positive way?
[Agenda, in itself, really is a stupid word to tack on to the end of anything except in the most specific of cases. Merriam-Webster Online defines agenda as such:
1. A list or outline of things to be considered or done
2. An underlying often ideological plan or program
Well, dur. Any interest group is going to have an ideological plan. Any interest group is going to have a way to implement said plan. They wouldn’t exist if they did. A bit redundant, hm?]
&
Feminism. Much more simplistically (and personally) this word isolates me extremely quickly. I’m a little uncertain as to when, exactly, I started making this association, but I usually treat the idea of “feminism” with revulsion - the word has extremely unpleasant associations for me, because the first thing I think when I hear it is “I’m so sick of hearing about how men are terrible creatures!”
Secondly, of course, there is this issue (as lystellion commented to me):
Feminism is one of the oddest things because, from what little I know of it, it doesn't pick out anything coherent. It ranges from the eminently sensible to the utterly ridiculous.
And then there is the ever-popular excessive gendering of traits. Certainly there are conflicts between masculine/feminine perspective, and I’m not claiming that women have never been treated horrendously, but most feminism I’ve encountered seeks to tear down every aspect of that terrible masculine status quo without really defining what’s so “masculine” about it (other than the dominant party has always been male and therefore we have conformed to the male ideal of normality, but that’s making the presupposition that the masculine ideal of normality is drastically different from the feminine one).
And, of course, there’s always the subtle implication that “masculinity” is something inherently foul (or at least I’ve encountered that a lot). Seems just as sexist as the status quo, just in a different way.
At any rate, the point is attaching the word “feminism” to something makes me cringe. Personal reflection &c.
This event was followed by a meal at Curtis and a more general (and understandable) discussion not of feminism but of masculinity & femininity as they are defined. After something of a debate I think we came to the general conclusion that “masculine” traits and “feminine” traits are socially constructed and not universal cross-culturally (which … is pretty much common sense shh). Further, I applied some of Wittgenstein (aphorisms 65-69; ignore the commentary on the right) to this whole idea of “masculine” and “feminine.” And by “applied some of Wittgenstein” I mean I used the whole “family resemblance” thing. Because, really, what do all typically “masculine” traits have in common other than they have vaguely associated features. I don’t really think there’s a common essence of masculinity - especially considering how dependent the idea of masculinity is upon cultural context.
I … think I just made a lot of assumptions. Feel free to rip that apart.
At any rate we’re currently studying Romanticism in music history. I’ve come to the conclusion that this is one of my favorite eras to study, and that almost any creative figure active during the Romantic time period at the least lead an interesting (and likely depressing) life.
Music history, I might add, ended with me inserting the comment that “Byron had sex with anything that moved” at an extremely quiet point in the class.
Anyway, today was excellent. And I got all my work done, so win for that. Also, A on my rhetorical analysis.
Oh yeah.
Tagged by both lilian_cho & lovin_torture
a. list seven habits/quirks/facts about yourself
b. tag up to seven people to do the same
1. I have a tendency to read for too much into things.
2. I love studying the history behind the dead white males just as much as I like studying their contributions.
3. I really enjoy peeling potatoes.
4. I shamelessly appropriate phrases, terms, and abbreviations I like from others.
5. I love writing things out by hand rather than typing them. I especially adore taking notes.
6. One glass of coke will do to me the same thing an energy drink will do to most other people.
7. I compulsively fill out every meme I see, typically with no intention of actually posting the answers.
So tomorrow is everyone’s favorite holiday (well, technically today). For all of you determined to enjoy a holiday based off a pagan fertility rite, don’t let the anti-Valentine agenda get you down. As for myself, tomorrow Prince Hal is going to be my imaginary boyfriend (STFU).