Log In

Home
    - Create Journal
    - Update
    - Download

LiveJournal
    - News
    - Paid Accounts
    - Contributors

Customize
    - Customize Journal
    - Create Style
    - Edit Style

Find Users
    - Random!
    - By Region
    - By Interest
    - Search

Edit ...
    - Personal Info &
      Settings
    - Your Friends
    - Old Entries
    - Your Pictures
    - Your Password

Developer Area

Need Help?
    - Lost Password?
    - Freq. Asked
      Questions
    - Support Area



Pyrate Jenni ([info]pyratejenni) wrote in [info]unfunny_fandom,
@ 2011-08-18 00:55:00
Previous Entry  Add to memories!  Tell a Friend!  Next Entry
Neo_prodigy silences a feminist critic
Over at LJ's inclusive_geeks community, korinna posts about neo_prodigy's misogyny, not only in his personal posts, but in his How To Write Slash posts and his published novel. She includes a large document of examples of his misogyny from the latter. Tee document can be downloaded here.

Why do you have to download it?

Because neo_prodigy responded like all good professionals to criticism and had LJ suspend the post, and when it was transferred to Wordpress, had that suspended as well..

(Read comments) - (Post a new comment)


[info]seiberwing
2011-08-18 10:38 pm UTC (link)
It was supposed to be "perspectives in social sciences". So we got Marxism, Rational Choice, some other stuff mostly directed at the historians and anthropologists, then they remember there's psychologists in the crew and throw in Psychoanalysis because hey it's not like nobody's used that in fifty years.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)


[info]mmanurere
2011-08-18 11:11 pm UTC (link)
To be fair, while Freud is crap as psychology (compared to developments since), he's great as a case study in "making shit up without noticing or have other people noticing you're making shit up because it fits enough of their preconceived notions and you tie it all together into a Great Big Important Narrative." Freud will probably be relevant in literature and cultural-studies classes long after his only interest to psychology people is as a historical figure.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)


[info]cmdr_zoom
2011-08-18 11:16 pm UTC (link)
Now I'm imagining a portrait of him next to a phrenology map and an explanation of the four humours.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)


[info]seiberwing
2011-08-19 01:22 am UTC (link)
That would be exactly where he belongs, yes.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)


[info]cmdr_zoom
2011-08-19 06:19 pm UTC (link)
Mac Hall, 2001:

"According to Freud, [your subconscious] is telling you to have sex with your mother."
"I didn't even tell you what the dream was."
"Freud never lets the details get in the way."

(Reply to this)(Parent)


[info]innervoice_chan
2011-08-19 09:43 am UTC (link)
The current problem with Freud and literature or cultural-studies classes is that a lot of the time, those classes still take him DEAD SERIOUSLY and take his word about penis envy or whatever as GOSPEL. I'm talking "a Freudian analysis of XYZ Story" with no one pointing out that "hey, you know how you think you're being all scientific and tying together the fields of literature and psychology? Well, no one in psychology takes Freud terribly seriously anymore..."

I will be SO GLAD if I live to see the day when literature classes study Freud as a deeply flawed text in a historical milieu, instead of taking him at his word and then using him to analyze other stuff.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)


[info]mmanurere
2011-08-19 05:35 pm UTC (link)
Maybe it's like how I'm used to seeing post-structuralism treated in critical-theory contexts: a bunch of people studying the process of bullshit-as-reality, and a smaller number who get it and are studying bullshit as something broadly mistaken for reality. My undergrad department, at least, tended towards the latter approach, which has actually been kinda useful.

(Reply to this)(Parent)


[info]cleolinda
2011-08-20 12:46 am UTC (link)
The only way that works, as far as I can tell, is if the author him/herself believed in Freudian psychology (and you have, say, writings that attest to this), and thus the characters and themes and whatnot were created with that understanding. Just as pure "this is what people are like, so that's my analysis"? Yeah, no.

(Reply to this)(Parent)


[info]oxfordcomma
2011-08-30 05:29 am UTC (link)
Freudian analysis is bullshit when applied to people, but it tends to work much better for texts. Especially texts written by white dudes, and especially especially 19th and early 20th century ones. I tend to be deeply suspicious of Freudian analyses, but some of them are pretty persuasive. (Not the "Hamlet has an Oedipal complex" shit, though.)

*shrugs* Freud! What a dickbag.

(Reply to this)(Parent)


[info]frequentmouse
2011-08-18 11:45 pm UTC (link)
Long ago in the dawning days of the Nixon administration I was in an Evergreen program called "Freud and Jung an Approach to the Humanities" wherein we spent the first quarter neatly divided between reading Freud and then Jung.

It was more than a little mind-numbing.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)


[info]seiberwing
2011-08-19 12:03 am UTC (link)
At least Jung's got some interesting stuff in there.

(Reply to this)(Parent)

(Read comments) -

 
   
Privacy Policy - COPPA
Legal Disclaimer - Site Map