It is unreasonable to expect ANY deep field of study to be easily explained to laypeople, especially bored hostile laypeople with "What's there to explain? It's not science or anything, EVERYONE can just read a book and criticize it" It's an obnoxious celebration of ignorance
-
-
I asked the original poster to explain in simple words the drivel we saw - but still no answer. I will send you a cookie if you can even just to explain what is it about and what are the objects in that sentence.
5 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
It's about the Butlerian concept of "performativity", the idea that none of us essentially IS one of the things that makes up our identities automatically and without effort, that everything you think of as true about yourself is a role you dress up for and act out onstage
3 replies 3 retweets 96 likes -
Replying to @arthur_affect @LakyLudke and
There is no meaning to just BEING a man or a woman, a man or a woman is something you PERFORM, you only get defined as a man by other people by going out on the stage of the public sphere every day and ACTING LIKE a man according to certain rules that define "manhood"
1 reply 4 retweets 60 likes -
Replying to @arthur_affect @LakyLudke and
So this first passage is about how Victorian literature is from a time and place that, on the surface, rejects this philosophy out of hand -- it's a time when people outright said everything about you was determined from the moment of your birth by your genetics
3 replies 2 retweets 58 likes -
Seriously? Your superficial knowledge is showing I think. The concept of "genetics" was not even known in Viictorian times. What a bunch of ahistorical illiterate nonsense.
3 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @LakyLudke @arthur_affect and
Don't you just love when you accuse someone of having superficial knowledge only to make a mistake a quick Wikipedia search could have prevented?
1 reply 0 retweets 8 likes -
Replying to @TrueMetis @arthur_affect and
Eh? Queen Victoria died in 1901 I believe. The word "gene" wasnt even coined before 1905 if I am not mistaken.... Whats up?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @LakyLudke @arthur_affect and
Didn't take the opportunity to do that Wikipedia search did you? Genetics predates gene by almost a hundred years because, as Arthur pointed out, genetics was coined in 1819.
3 replies 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @TrueMetis @LakyLudke and
More generally, the concept of inheriting physical traits from your parents is, of course, ancient, whatever fucking word you use for it
2 replies 1 retweet 19 likes
What we think of as modern "genetics" where "genes" are discrete rather than continuous bits of information was, sure, based on Mendel's work, and didn't become a science until the 20th century But that has... nothing to do with what I was talking about
-
-
Replying to @arthur_affect @TrueMetis and
The concept of genetics as we understand it today would be completely foreign to Victorian novelists, but heritability coming from one's breeding can be found in the Old Testament (e.g. "visiting the iniquity of the parents upon the children to the 3rd & the 4th generation")
0 replies 0 retweets 3 likesThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.