scholar

I never asserted that Gender Studies or Feminism were worthless, they certainly aren't. I do however have little patience for writers who delight in unnecessarily padding out their language with redundant flourishes to the detriment of their message.

My original comment was facetious, but it's telling from Judith's quote that she hadn't considered (or at least anticipated) her audience when writing. Her other comments about wanting to challenge readers as a form of self-betterment are frankly insulting, not to mention completely at odds with her other comment about the obligation to speak to people where they are (with which I entirely agree).

It's an appalling non-attempt at communication. She writes like a student given a word count and a thesaurus, and anyone who uses the phrase 'ontological presence' should be slapped with a fish.

Your translation was excellent but even you had to resort to vaguery when it came to "material process of power applied to the body through gender". What power? Applied externally or internally? What is the mechanism that applies the power?

Too many academics (particularly philosophers and art historians) treat their disciplines as an excersise in being as misunderstandable as possible, and there is really no excuse for it. This is technical writing: presise and meaningful word choice is the name of the game. Jargon where appropriate. "prediscursive surface" never.

Older ones do, newer ones don't to reduce water usage.

It's not trying to say anything, that would be a capital mistake. It's trying to appear to say something profound so that the paycheques keep arriving.

It's actually anti-lock breaking system, super high end; not many cables have it

We're not told much about the Independant Planets, certainly nothing suggests that they themselves did anything wrong (other than secede). You seem to have a problem with their superficial resemblence of the confederacy.

Mal and his crew are thieves and smugglers, not pirates or murderers. The 'Mal is latin for bad' line another commenter mentioned was a red herring in an episode. They aren't evil people intent on subjugation.

I'd prefer it if it were possible to kick these chuds off the fediverse entirely

And they still don't see who they are...

There's no indication that slavery was a factor, only political self-determination

The Commonwealth of England could have been a great idea if they'd planned ahead and thought everything out, but considering the kind of people in charge I'm quite glad they didn't...

Good, you are gatekeeping a meaningless distinction for a definition that has been in use since the 1300s. From wiktionary:

Some usage guides seek to distinguish “jealous” from “envious”, using jealous to mean “protective of one’s own position or possessions” – one “jealously guards what one has” – and envious to mean “desirous of others’ position or possessions” – one “envies what others have”.[1] This distinction is also maintained in the psychological and philosophical literature.[2][3] In common usage, however, although envious is always with respect to others’ possessions or fortune, jealous does not always refer strictly to one’s own possessions (as shown by the citations above).

You're not being forced to use their Santa tracker, it's a US agency having fun with a US tradition.

This isn't about personal beliefs, it's about organised religion (where the church dictates to children their beliefs)