said that we should avoid dialogue with the sub-standard reasoning. It is important to choose an opponent who is good enough, otherwise, to be infected by the stupidity, as well as to the downturn – the prints are always out of what you are writing about. The bad thoughts to flow away into the silence.
the Capacity of the Arpis. and Anna-Karin Wyndhamns , the eagerly awaited granskningsbok ”Genusdoktrinen” it is very doubtful that the polemisera, but I have a suspicion that the reader would be well advised to take a mustaschtyskens advice, and at the very least start off in the välviljans end of the world. I believe that this book will be dismissed by many who ought to be thinking about Arpis and Wyndhamns criticism points to something important – and, of hugging the broke people that had the dimensions of the well-to-read, the more suspicious.
the Background to this is, of course, Arpis controversial series of articles in the Swedish daily newspaper svenska Dagbladet about the gender studies place at university, starting in the late autumn of 2017 on the other (for Travel 4/11-2017). In the past I have been critical of the (25/7-2019), in particular, on the basis of the Arpis of the dramatic rhetoric, all the talk about the genusideologiska överkyrkor, and the quiet revolution.
a metaphor is a thank – you – bortrensad now, when he has crowdsourcat free from the wage system, have in the education programme helping and have written a fairly comprehensive book on the subject. But the idea is pretty much the same.
It sounds a little bit like an intellectual detective story, isn't it?
in other words: gender studies, the influence of the English universities is at risk. In particular, since it is a small discipline, has been given additional administrative powers, sanctioned as a policy area. Gender mainstreaming is known as the. Is very short it implies that the universities have a duty to make its activities more gender-equal. From the inventory lists, and appointments to the research involved.
Responsible for the enforcement of and support for the process was the first of the National secretariat for gender research (in which the Wyndhamn, has worked, and offers insights into the of, then the Jämställdhetsmyndigheten. The authors perceive these organizations as the Feminist initiative ”school event”, rather than a neutral government. From here you operate genusagenter” instead of intersectionality and gender theory, and the ”postmodern” up to date generation to another, to the fields of science, and then byråkratisera into the leader in the load-bearing frames. And in this way the subvertera of liberal humanism, which formed the basis for the science of a couple of hundred years of age.
All of our women's movement the government of god, the eyes.
It sounds a little bit like an intellectual detective story, isn't it?
The american philosopher Judith Butler.Photo by: < / b> TIM BJÖRKDAHL / DN
But it sounds different when you read the book. Arpi, and Wyndhamn's working fairly systematically, with the beginning of the Hesslow store, it, Uppsala university the painful story of a lecturer at the university " Inga-Lill Andersson , Erik Ringmar. , the political scientist, who was forced to quote the Judith Butler in a reference list, which is queerteoretikern itself was found to be unreasonable, wrong, even, how, good, simple intentions behind the pressure was.
Three of the events, as directed, in order to portray how an intersectional genusdoktrin gained a foothold in the universities. Be serious, yes. However, the look is quite isolated; the dogma of the church has, as far as I know the tendency is to hit a broader market.
the Review continues by describing how the concept of gender mainstreaming to work in practice, it is very interesting, not least because it is said to be that rather of the fruit, and losing, and in many cases, a kind of expensive in the administrative make-up. The less interesting it will be when the Arpi, and the Wyndhamn propose to do is to look at the philosophic theories behind the genusdoktrinen”.
I wish I had the time and space to discuss it here, the pieces are elaborate, but I will respond to the birth of tragedy and in just this way: the critique of ”postmodernism”, and on intersectional theory, we have a couple of points, but the possible unfair long as they are in the form of individual examples, to present the major elements of the discipline as a relativistic ideologiproduktion, and are able to blend in with a dose of transphobia.
in Other parts of the request are equal, and evil is ugly. The color of the.
in Particular, a telling sign will be the when the Arpi, and the Wyndhamn try to explain ”postmodernism” and increasingly popular among the left wing – which in itself is doubtful in view, there are no great interest to the thinkers and writers of the Andreas Malm , Martin Hägglund to point to something else?
But let that go. They seem to think that they call it serves as a solution to the problem is that the collapse of the Soviet union caused. It is a scientific marxism failed, and they found their way to the objektivitetens his back – do you know the names, Derrida , the Returning , Necessary , and so on – to be able to say that it is really not at all, there is no true science. And so it's not so surprising, then, that the Soviet union, pajade! The work can be continued.
There is, quite frankly, is a direct outlandish conspiracy theory, historically, to take the ignorant, and the gymnasialt the realm of (to the one who actually wants to learn something about the subject, I would recommend that Nora Hämäläinens skitfina ”Is The postmodern?”, from the previous year).
in Other parts of the request are equal, and evil is ugly. The color of the. Also, the parts that are important.
On the other hand, it would seem, to put it mildly, is a problem of the authorities, who are pushing the concept of gender mainstreaming.
But in spite of that, the argument often is, both to the insidious, and the remarkable success Arpi and Wyndhamn to convince me that the concept of gender mainstreaming by the Swedish higher education institutions and the university, which is a problem. Sure, it can bring good things with it. However, a matter of principle. The politicians and the bureaucrats to stay as far away from academia as possible. At any time, completely and exclusively. Anything less is to leave the door open to harm.
However, in practice, it seems unfortunate state of affairs. On the one hand, points to the authors of the great aspects of a project, such as, for example, the open compliance and verksamhetspåverkande it's rather wasted money. The researchers would like to conduct research. Therefore, the bite of the pair, listening to consultants, and adds it to the dutiful language in the document, as well as applications, skitsnackar, giving läppservice, and will continue to do research.
the Vast sums of money spent on a pointless, politically-fancy outwork; ”Genusdoktrinen” does not succeed in showing that the genusdoktrinen has taken the advances of science, or the content of any particular degree.
On the other hand, it would seem, to put it mildly, is a problem of the authorities, who are pushing the concept of gender mainstreaming. In addition, argues the Arpi, and the Wyndhamn, the – in the case of some of the university's appointments (at the Chalmers university of technology, KTH) and the division of state funding – creating a new injustice, skewed priorities, and other inequalities.
This is without a doubt very important to discuss the issue.
In a widely-cited study of the Alice World and Christine Wennerås ' conclusion: in 1997, it became apparent that women were treated unfairly, in spite of equal merit, when they were seeking funding for research. This led to the action. Ten years later, the came to: Ulf Sandstrom " - up to the study, not to criticize, but to see if anything has changed. Very true, women were treated unfairly, not anymore. On the contrary, the. Being a woman, and it gave a 10% higher chance of getting the money. Today, it is the young men with and without a network of contacts, which is the poor. The result has been, according to the Arpi, and the Wyndhamn been met with a collective silence.
This is without a doubt very important to discuss the issue. However, an ongoing "revolution", as the blurb promised? Not so much. I am left with a nagging idea that the authors might be a bit ideological, dazzled by the gender issue, and, therefore, is only approaching the roots of the problem.
and Why the administrators have so much influence? How do you explain to a bureaucrat who has not read a book in his entire life. George Eliot is a woman, in order to get through a reading list? Why is it that the collegiate self-government, funds of funds, is being undermined? What, then, of the teacher's freedom to shape their teaching? How did the research as well as for state-owned assets, that is, of course, is and always will be, politicized and marked by the occasional whim?
it's really about the concept of gender mainstreaming, as a pådyvlad genusdoktrin? Maybe. However, I don't think so.
PAUL ARPI & ANNA-KARIN WYNDHAMN.
the Freedom of thought, 374 p.
to View merVisa off < / span>
as the Victor, as the Ore is in the critic, and the editor-in chief of the Swedish newspaper Expressen kultursida.
READ MORE: Was I the only one who walked free from the genusideologin?
READ MORE: utbrände the journalist was civilisationskritiker