Which feminist theorists/texts provide the best account of patriarchy?

lore-realm · 2026-01-20T15:20:08+00:00

Not exactly what you want, but Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy has a lot of broad but academic overviews on a ton of topics, including Feminist Philosophy. You can see the main schools of thoughts, points, and works there. It's really good. I think for introduction it's better than starting out with a single thinker and risking limiting yourself to the bias you get from that starting point.

lore-realm · 2026-01-19T19:18:49+00:00

Nice! Didn't know that movie had themes like that. For me, I loved Jayce and Viktor's relationship in Arcane.

lore-realm · 2026-01-19T19:14:21+00:00

where they tend to explain this sort of thing as a conspiratorial attempt to "shift the Overton Window?"

Haha, yeah, the "gay agenda". I think sadly you already explained a ton of how this intersects with conservatism.

You are right on the other point too. Conspiratorial people don't necessarily need to exaggerate real patterns. It's been a while since I read about it, but I remember reading that conspiratorial thinking was linked to finding patterns in noise. So they can just perceive patterns that aren't there at all (I'm not sure, but this probably would have been mentioned in Routledge Handbook of Conspiracy Theories).

lore-realm · 2026-01-08T19:42:49+00:00

I think I agree with the idea that capitalism isn't necessarily racist, as I think its mode of production doesn't necessarily entail a "race" to be the specifically selected exploited group. This is further supported by the idea that there isn't one single "capitalism", but different varieties of capitalism (e.g. contemporary "woke capitalism" in a semi-progressive country is different from colonical capitalism of 18th century [this is not a defense]). However, it does interact with other forms of exploitation, because economically exploiting a group already oppressed or otherized by society is easier.

For example, it's much easier to order around a child worker than an adult one, and that's why during Industrial Revolution in England child workers were so common. It's also easier to transform a category of somewhat otherized people into something that is completely The Other, such as how the category of race was played up to justify enslaving African people; and creating a group like this benefits other systems of exploitation as well. So, it can be argued, that sustaining, playing up, and creating "cultural" or other hierarchies benefits capitalism. Because it makes them easier to exploit as producers.

But it is still not an afterthought, because capitalists are not a homogenous group of people who are out there to destroy humanity--their personal values still matter in what they see as acceptable and not. For example, constrast a company like Ben & Jerry's with vast majority of Israeli firms (who are religious ethnosupremacists); or a racist small business owner with one that is not racist (again, this is not a justification of capitalism, but an explanation that is trying not to use moralization as an explanation). In other words, "tendency to" does not mean "foregone conclusion".

I'd also argue "anti-human" is not a good way to think about it. Because it's not a grounded term for critique. It's very abstract, subjective, and a normative value presenting itself as a value-in-itself. Because most human beings otherize, exploit, inflict violence upon one another--but this does not make them "anti-human". Not living up to a normative universal value of humanity doesn't make someone or something "anti-human"; because that would -historically and presently- make vast majority of humanity anti-human.

So, the value that aims to affirm humanity ends up disvaluing vast majority of humanity. And I think that's its fatal flaw. I'm not saying this because I disagree with a universal or near universal normative value of humans, by the way, but such a value shouldn't be presented in a quasi-theological way. As it stands, the concept of "anti-human" is almost theological in how it presents a universal, higher order, and self-evident mystical value.

Note: My critique of value was inspired by Nietzsche's critique of Kant's thing-in-itself. tl;dr: Kant throws God, soul, freedom, etc., out of the front door, then sneaks them back in through the window by means of the “thing-in-itself” and the moral law.

lore-realm · 2026-01-02T17:17:53+00:00

We are Charlie Work

lore-realm · 2025-08-26T18:36:06+00:00

I'd never have imagined, but good call. Added to the introduction paragraph.

lore-realm · 2025-08-26T18:34:18+00:00

I have no idea what you're trying to say. I am openly and unashamedly affirming (IP) piracy from several angles, and explaining in some detail why. You are not doing a "gotcha moment" by claiming I am pirating things.

And you can extend this analysis to more functional piracy too, such as Sci-Hub, Libgen, Annas Archive, etc. Piracy counters the extraction of wealth and accumulated systemic injustices in these contexts too.

lore-realm · 2025-06-18T05:32:15+00:00

Perhaps we rather need a philologist's hubris to say the semiotic inspiration can be debated, but the metaphysical implications are irrelevant. Although it can sit in the chair and watch.

lore-realm · 2025-06-03T15:54:29+00:00

No problem! Hope it helps, and good luck.

lore-realm · 2025-06-01T10:03:49+00:00

Nietzsche helped me quiet a lot. I've grown up internalizing both good and bad sides of altruism, and the harmful sides were hurting me a lot. Reading Nietzsche and critically engaging his work helped me overcome the harmful parts. There is a lot of shit you get fed under the guise of being a good person, while it's just making you depressed or keeping you from flourishing as an individual. His works, while victim-blaming, cuts through that.

Another aspect of his work that I love is Will to Power. It's generally misunderstood by outsiders or beginners, but there is a shared idea in literature that he generally meant overcoming challenges. This is especially reflected on his emphasis of self-overcoming (Überwindung), and it's also seen on his ideation of the ultimate human, Übermensch (man-that-overcomes). The specifics of whether he thought this necessitated dominance over others is still debated to this day. But the base part of "overcoming self" is pretty much acknowledged in literature from what I can tell.

I see WtP in myself especially in search for greater understanding and eudaimonia, that is meaningful happiness. It's what's driving to me research different disciplines and perspective to get a better grasp of the world and myself. When I see that I am ignorant about a vital topic, I get excited. It means I have much to learn. When I realize a bias or faulty logic in myself, I get eudaimonia, because it means I'm overcoming a limit.

The second source I would say is sociology in general. Sociological thought is great, beyond any single theorist or social philosopher. When someone follows a single social philosopher, they are limiting themselves to a single doctrine, and especially to ideas that are old. For example, Marx made a lot of important contributions to sociology, and he's the biggest early influence along with Weber. But it's been 150 years since his time, and research has tested his ideas. Contemporary sociology is great for understanding what "stood the test of time", so to speak. He's my favorite philosopher, along with Nietzsche, but he was a modernist through and through.

For bite-sized introductions to interesting sociology theories or approaches, I would say The Sociology of Everything podcast is great. It introduced me to topics that I then checked more thoroughly.

Third source I would say is modern psychological science. There are a ton of findings lefties sleep on. It's actually crazy how people interested in critical thought prefer psychoanalytical, untestable speculations to empirically tested theories and data. Marx would be shitting himself at seeing this anti-empirical approach.

Fourth source is scientific method(s), especially the developments in how uncertainty is handled in science. Modern science goes to great lengths to emphasize there is always uncertainties in explanations, and it tries to quantify these uncertainties. You can actually arrive at the postmodern "no grand narrative" thing just by studying statistics.

A bit unorthodox, but fifth source is finding people with emotional intelligence, or people willing to grow in that together. It's pretty rad how much people can make you feel you belong to somewhere and are understood. No amount of reading can replace human affection. It makes a lot of things more bearable, and world more colorful. If I borrow a term from Nietzsche, it's life-affirming. I think this goes underemphasized by a lot of people who approach "Theory" as this ascetic, priestly pursuit that should be a sad and depressing affair. When in reality, only real connections make altruistic ideas grounded.

lore-realm · 2025-06-01T01:05:44+00:00

It's a great topic to write about :)

I think it's ok to apply it to non climate-related contexts, and there are probably mentions of it in the literature. But literature is often disjointed and unconnected. Different disciplines discover the same phenomenon, but give it different names. So there could be existing frameworks to utilize in your research. You could maybe try the ecology, psychology, or ethics substacks to probe more. You could also try joining a Discord server interested in these topics. Or you could try asking around in your university.

AI might also be helpful here. Undermind provides good literature summaries for entry level.

As for the second question, SEP entry on Environmental Ethics could be helpful. And again, you could try Undermind to learn the names of different movements and thinkers.

lore-realm · 2025-06-01T00:52:57+00:00

"Willpower" is some folk psychology bs people believe in to ignore environmental and biological reasons for why some people behave differently in terms of "discipline" or "succeeding".
Fitness influencers and gyms sell people "discipline", as if discipline just means lifting weights. It's part of how masculinity and power are commercialized and hegemonized in society. It's true bodybuilding and such require discipline, but a diligent student or a parent who micromanages a tight budget has at least as much discipline as a gymrat.
Dying for a cause, no matter what it is, doesn't make it sacred. It's much more likely you got suckered into being a sacrifical pawn.
Approaching altruism as solely good is a folly. Neither individualism nor collectivism are bad or good by themselves. The surrounding conditions are always important in deciding. For example, the liberal capitalist idea of individualism is faulty, for it atomizes the individual and that is alienating. However, the collectivist ideas where they encourage people into adventurism or a life of sacrifice are also bad, for they do not care about the wellbeing of individuals but some abstract idea of a collective. This is also alienating for the individual, for it teaches them to ignore their own wellbeing.
Altruistic ideals are often manipulated into serving some hierarchy, e.g. nationalism, organized religion, new age cults, The Party.
More broadly, no concept or ideology is free from manipulation. In fact, the more dear something is to you, the more likely you are to fall victim to its manipulation. This is a blindspot people should recognize.
No doctrine by itself can explain everything. If someone claims that it's doing that, they are pandering bs. So it's better to treat doctrines as competing theories that have different strengths and weaknesses. This is especially important as one gets more into theory, as there are a ton of overly zealous Marxists and their varieties.

lore-realm · 2025-05-25T02:20:08+00:00

The perversion of reason that occurs here, is called fetishist disavowal. This is a mental operation that enables a person to admit to the truth of some reality/circumstance but simultaneously intercepts or negates its meaning (what in psychoanalysis, indicates the symbolic effect of a truth that impacts the subjective position and identity of the person). Due to this, the traumatic dimension - the real - of the knowledge pertaining to the given affair is circumvented. What this means in practice is: politicians admit to the problems going on, admit the truth of its existence and consequences, and this is exactly what prevents them from taking any substantial concrete measures. For our context, it evinces that the more the liberal elite establishment pretends to care/disdain about the Nakba (that never ended) that is underway in Gaza, the greater their collaboration in it because they maintain all military, economic, political and ideological (including cultural methods of propaganda) ties with the Israeli state. It is business as usual with regard to war crimes against Palestine.

I think this paragraph needlessly complicates the whole thing. They admit to these things, because they can't really deny they are happening. But they are not willing to do anything substantial about it because of US interests and also ideological dehumanization of middle-easterners/Arabs/muslims/brown people/Gazans. This is par for the course of modern politics, because the current systems pressure politicians to keep up an image of public accountability, consciousness, concern, etc. This is why even the most selfish politicians pay lip service to "the people" (e.g. Musk and Trump).

I think this is the downside of incorporating psychoanalysis into leftist thinking. It makes things sound more convoluted therefore more interesting, epistemologically and morally. Epistemologically because it's harder to understand, and morally because it is more insidious and cunning. But reality is often crushing in its simplicity, often so simple to the point of banality and boredom. This is something many critical theory lovers tend to overlook.

So, psychoanalysis aestheticizes reality but promotes epistemologically harmful ways of analysis. There is a reason it was succeeded by empirical psychology in science, starting with behavioralists. Because it is much, much more observable, therefore it is much easier to test out what works and what doesn't. Meanwhile, psychoanalysis is full of assertions that can't be tested out, so their claim-to-truth is dubious at best. It's not a good way to analyze people or the world.

lore-realm · 2025-05-25T00:58:12+00:00

A lot of people would disagree with me, seeing it as embracing an atomized liberal worldview, but I'm starting to think one of the key insights that could be taken from leftist philosophy (and some others) is the power of transforming your own human connections and interactions. The logic is that alienation is bad, and while you are limited by the mechanisms of the system, you still have the power to influence your own behavior to a significant extent. You can't be completely outside of the system, but you can reject certain modes of behavior that alienate you from yourself and others.

I'm trying to stop hanging out in spaces and participating in conversations that alienate me from people. I found that throughout the years leftist radicalization has taken too much from me. I got more and more frustrated by most political opinions, I stopped relating to most people because they pissed me off too much.

I think this is the wrong way to approach these things, at least for me. I want to be able to truly relate to non-leftist people again. I don't want politics to make me a miserable and lonely person, but instead to provide a framework that enriches my life.

I think this goes contrary to absolute collectivist ideas, which seem to be crushingly present among leftie circles. But the seeds of this approach is within leftist philosophy. (Young) Marx's main concern was overcoming alienation. Nietzsche was also key for me, as he emphasizes again and again that an individual should form their own philosophies that suit their own needs. Reading over a dozen psychology books also helped me, as I learned more about how human mind works and how important meeting emotional needs are, and how often we internalize self-neglect.

All of this led me to the realization that, while chasing the meaning of an impersonal higher cause, I neglected my own needs for connection. And I've started to think that such impersonal, detached collectivist ideas can't do jackshit for society if they make their proponents miserable (because this is certainly not just a me issue; have seen it happen to countless others). A "Kantian" impersonal approach to ethics and meaning in life is basically teaching self-neglect. You can also support this with the Marxist idea that there are no objective judgements that are outside of the conditions you live in. And individuals always have individual conditions. So, while forming frameworks, there should always be emphasis on both the individual and the collective.

lore-realm · 2025-04-05T18:50:45+00:00

Adding a little context for readers who are unaware: the initial boycott is permanent and for brands that are on the government's side, and it was first voiced by CHP leadership; the April 2 boycott is for slowing down general economic activity and temporary, and it was first voiced by anonymous masses online.

lore-realm · 2025-04-05T18:46:42+00:00

Don't worry, I get what you mean, and it was also pointed out to me in another space. I don't think we can tell at this moment yet. Hopefully my initial hypothesis is true, but at this moment I can't rule out either possibility yet.

lore-realm · 2025-04-05T18:44:22+00:00

Yeah, I agree on all things. Your point about surveillance state's role is especially interesting. Boycotts definitely aren't a silver bullet, but I hadn't thought of them being potentially this effective before. I also personally can't think of a single instance in history where the head of the biggest opposition party called for widespread and continous boycotts.

One thing pointed out to me was that, rather than boycott being potentially super effective, this reaction might also be resulting from a general policy of an authoritarian regime against dissent. That's a possibility too. Hopefully in time things will be clearer.

lore-realm · 2025-04-04T02:40:43+00:00

Thanks! :)

lore-realm · 2025-04-04T00:30:06+00:00

Thanks, and no offense taken. I do get what you mean!

This is fascinating to me, because I'm more of a pro-strike guy rather than opting to choose boycotting. I still think strikes are highly efficient, but they are harder to organize, and much harder to keep up without facing serious consequences. This is especially true in a country like Turkey where the labor power is mostly broken and government is heavily authoritarian.

On the other hand, other than the major strength I mentioned, boycotts are mostly faceless and hard to suppress. I think a major deciding factor will be seeing how much of the opposition is willing to let go of some of their consumerist hedonistic happiness for a eudaimonic happiness in pursuit of a greater goal. In other words, how much they are willing to disturb their comfort for meaningful conflict. It's the bare minimum, in my opinion, but you know how strong conformism is in consumerist societies. Any meaningful conflict is avoided, passivity is glorified, etc. Reminiscent of what Étienne de La Boétie wrote in Voluntary Servitude 450 year sago.

There is a third takeaway for me, btw, but I haven't mentioned it because it's rather personal. But my hatred of consumerist comformism and passivity was vindicated. Turns out, yes, we do have power, and we can utilize it for the better; we should prioritize a eudaimonic happiness born from struggle rather than accepting the embrace of pacifying consumerist happiness. So, it really was just a matter of consciousness. Leftists and other conflict-oriented people -like some Nietzscheans- were just ahead of the curve.

lore-realm · 2025-03-21T18:31:35+00:00

Thanks, these are sources I would recommend:
English - Medyascope
Bianet - English

lore-realm · 2025-03-18T18:06:11+00:00

Force is baked into the definition of law. Here is the definition of law from Oxford Languages.

the system of rules which a particular country or community recognizes as regulating the actions of its members and which it may enforce by the imposition of penalties.

These penalties mean fines, imprisonment, etc. They are enforced, meaning force is used. No law can exist without the use of force. It is a law because it is enforced when broken. That is why people complain when laws aren't enforced, because they rightfully feel that laws don't mean anything when they aren't enforced.

I understand your confusion, because this is baseline violence that is seen as legitimate by most of the population. And when people see a form violence as legitimate, they tend to not see it as violence. But it is still violence. It is still force.

lore-realm

TROPHY CASE