Thursday, July 1, 2010
Yes, I believe that's news. Via Mick Hartley, a college professor named Jasbir Puar shows that when it comes to a choice between protecting homosexuals from death and smashing the Jewish State, she knows what side she's on: Israel's gay propaganda war
...Israeli pinkwashing is a potent method through which the terms of Israeli occupation of Palestine are reiterated - Israel is civilised, Palestinians are barbaric, homophobic, uncivilised, suicide-bombing fanatics. It produces Israel as the only gay-friendly country in an otherwise hostile region. This has manifold effects: it denies Israeli homophobic oppression of its own gays and lesbians, of which there is plenty, and it recruits, often unwittingly, gays and lesbians of other countries into a collusion with Israeli violence towards Palestine.
In reproducing orientalist tropes of Palestinian sexual backwardness, it also denies the impact of colonial occupation on the degradation and containment of Palestinian cultural norms and values. Pinkwashing harnesses global gays as a new source of affiliation, recruiting liberal gays into a dirty bargaining of their own safety against the continued oppression of Palestinians, now perforce rebranded as "gay unfriendly". This strategy then also works to elide the presence of numerous Palestinian gay and lesbian organisations, for example Palestinian Queers for Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (PQBDS)...
This is of course exactly what we'd expect from the Jew-obsessed Guardian, but the comment thread is not what you'd expect at all. Not that it's good, mind you, it's just that as far as giving Israel some credit, the readership at least seems to understand that there are areas where that is possible.
Well the thread comments are gratifying but the article? Good lord that's just appalling.
I don't get this.
The woman that wrote the piece is an associate professor of women's and gender studies at Rutgers University.
http://womens-studies.rutgers.edu/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=273&Itemid=156
I tried to read the question and answer article linked below but was swallowed up by the turgid and pompous prose. Not to mention the jargon and lack of logic.
http://www.darkmatter101.org/site/2008/05/02/qa-with-jasbir-puar/
An example:
and
Her writing reminds me of the story about the Emperor with no clothes.
The woman is a moron and even most Guardian readers can see through her.
Vomitorious. That's a new one for Nappy who's long been familiar with a synonym: barfucious.
It sounds like a Sokol hoax but isn't. Just remember parents, this is what you're paying tens of thousands of dollars for.
Yes, a Sokal hoax for sure.
All day I listen to people who bullshit for a living. Young people often don't have the confidence to say something makes no sense; particularly when the nonsense is wrapped in jargon by an authority figure.
I often wonder whether people like Jasbir Puar actually believe the shit that comes out of their mouth.
I'm not surprised that the article she wrote for CIF was so piss poor. When she tries to express her ideas in language the masses can understand she fails miserably and even CIF commentators are embarrassed by the case she puts.
Nappy learns something new here just about every day. As a public service for those who likewise may be wondering just what a Sokal hoax is, Nappy is happy to provide this link. Nappy confesses to not googling until YCCMM's comment the spelling.
Alan Sokal claims the editors of Social Text should have known from the first paragraph that his paper was a parody. Hell's bells. The title is a dead giveaway that it's total BS. How else do you get "Transformative Hermeneutics" (whatever that is. Hermeneutics is arcane enough and sufficiently off-topic without the modifier.) linked up with "Quantum Gravity?"
There's a simple reason for the turgid (another great word Nappy had to look up) prose so common in academic, bureaucratic and business writing: if what you write is so dense, no one will criticize you lest they be called dumb for not understanding what you wrote. Emperor's new clothes indeed.
For the practitioner, the game is simple: if you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bullshit. Alan Sokal did it brilliantly, to make a point. Clueless idiots like Jasbir Puar do it unwittingly.
Nappy,
You can use my turgid if I can use your barfucious.