Red Mosquito

BurtReynolds wrote:checkmate, fucking bigots

Birds in Hell wrote:I’d never heard of Jordan Peterson two weeks ago, now I feel I’ve heard enough about him to last several lifetimes.

bune wrote:I've never heard of either and I'm going to remain happily ignorant based on comments here and on other boards.

Bi_3 wrote:http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10. ... 17.1358200

Abstract

This article explores the way vegan and vegetarian diets have been articulated within neo-liberal post-feminist culture. While these diets have an important role for vegetarian eco-feminists, as signs of resistance against the patriarchal and capitalist exploitative system, in post-feminism they have become sexy and business oriented. This shift is analyzed through the case study of Beyoncé’s involvement with the commercial enterprise “22 days,” a dietary regime that involves the elimination of any animal product for 22 days. Our argument is that while eco-feminists have embraced vegetarian and vegan regimes as ethical and political choices, post-feminism depoliticizes and deradicalizes them. In this way, they become part of an individualistic project that emphasizes empowerment and meritocracy; choice, agency, and responsibilization; and the focus on a healthy, sexy body. Ultimately, the post-feminist articulation of vegan diets promotes a form of “commodity veg*ism,” that is not only devoid of any critical force, but also reproduces existing patterns of discrimination and inequality. We use the term veg*ism to indicate the fluid uptake of vegan and vegetarian diets, whereby the avoidance of animal products relies more on an individual than on ethical and/or political choice.

Beyonce's public advocacy of eating vegetables is empowering women to make responsible, healthy choices. Exactly what the Patriarchy wants them to do!


Edit: I get that vegetables are expensive and not readily available in all areas, and the implication "eat veg or your are not sexy like Bey" might make people who cannot afford them feel resentful, but that 'outrage' is ridiculous compared to the long term health benefit for lower income people if they were to shift demand to greener, healthier calorie/food sources and that it's a commercial enterprise seeking to capitalize on that should in no way diminish the valuable effect it could have. It's like saying "people who don't think like me are not allowed to eat healthy."

Bi_3 wrote: Peterson is a thoughtful and reasonable person (I don't think he has realized his ego is putting him alongside those he derides), but he has picked a weird hill to die on with the whole "I'm not using made-up pronouns" thing. ]

surfndestroy wrote:

Bi_3 wrote: Peterson is a thoughtful and reasonable person (I don't think he has realized his ego is putting him alongside those he derides), but he has picked a weird hill to die on with the whole "I'm not using made-up pronouns" thing. ]

Fully agree with you regarding his ego. However, his point regarding pronouns has always been he will refuse to use preferred pronouns if Ontario or any level of government makes it a requirement. Ontario is looking at making preferred pronoun use a human right and Ontario has human rights tribunals that can find people guilty. He is against government compelled speech.

BurtReynolds wrote:The new puritans:

https://amp.theguardian.com/artanddesig ... nversation

Gallery removes naked nymphs painting to 'prompt conversation'

and

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2018/ ... grid-girls

Nothing says feminism like taking away women's jobs.