this post was submitted on 24 Mar 2024
-27 points (13.5% liked)

Conservative

385 readers
55 users here now

A place to discuss pro-conservative stuff

  1. Be excellent to each other. Civility, No Racism, No Bigotry, No Slurs, No calls to violences, No namecalling, All that good stuff, follow lemm.ee's rules, follow the rules of your instance, etc.

  2. We are a Pro-Conservative forum. Posts must have a clear pro-conservative, or anti left-wing bias. We are interested in promoting conservatism and discussing things that might get ignored elsewhere. All sources are acceptable, however reputable sources with a reputation for factual reporting are preferred.

  3. Dissent is allowed in the comments, but try to be constructive; if you do not agree, then provide a reason which is backed up by references or a reasonable alternative interpretation of the provided facts. That means the left wing is welcome to state their opinions, but please keep it in good faith.

A polite request, not a rule, if you feel the need to report a comment, please don't reply to it.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 8 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (2 children)

In the article, Letiecq said she drew upon "critical feminist and intersectional frameworks to delineate an overarching orientation to structural oppression and unequal power relations that advantages White heteropatriarchal nuclear families (WHNFs) and marginalizes others as a function of family structure and relationship status."

Just ignore the content. All these words are why many normal folks think academic liberals are airheads. I know what she's saying because I got used to this style of super dense academic writing. But how are regular folk supposed to make heads or tails of this?

To be fair, though, I'm not sure why media generally insists on presenting academic viewpoints like this. It's the social science version of talking about the mathematics of fusion reactors:

Particles are scattered by the MHD waves which are raised by instability of background plasmas. Probability that a particle entering to the downstream will eventually return to the upstream energy gain factor when a particle crosses and re-crosses the shock front.

Presenting unintelligible nonsense (from the layman's perspective) helps nobody. But then, Fox News does what media also generally does and dumbs the critique of marriage down into an absurdity to attack an easy strawman.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 8 months ago

But how are regular folk supposed to make heads or tails of this?

They are quoting her. That is why.

My issue with articles like this is that they are not tied to a policy, party, or event. It is just the rant of an academic.

Do I agree with her rant? No. Would most academics? No.

[–] BottomTierJannie -1 points 8 months ago

To be fair, though, I'm not sure why media generally insists on presenting academic viewpoints like this

Because they are fundamentally social topics that impact your average Joe. To just let a bunch of quacks leverage institutions to push their crap is how we let things go worse.