Hi Losti

Ok, here's explaining the differnece with time. Here is my account, on Thursday night, of my view of the PhD, at a moment of wiped out fatigue and feeling horrid. (Purpose: I hope to come and edit this post the next time I feel rested/different, and we'll see the change)

1. I am doing my PhD because I see I am doing my PhD.
2. I am told I have made brilliant progress in 1 yr, that my CV is growing apparently in leaps, I have a phenomenal supervisor and apparently I write with rich metaphors and speak 'melifluously'.
3. Ok. great. I am FT, I have 3 jobs for 3 days of the week, I have my sup as my emploter on 2 of those jobs, plus my co author/presenter for stuff, plus as the career mentor person. I am ambitious and demanding and rushed. And poor. Very.
4. I earn a lot of money with the jobs. The jobs go on my CV. the money goes in my bank to come out and pay 13000 quid tuition fees. Plus rent. I am poor. But, international eucation isnt my birthright, it is my luxury, it is another matter that I am earning it, for even scholarships from my uni cant cover it.
5. I am told, 3 jobs plus a full time PhD means I need to not try and publish and present while doing a 3 yrs PhD. I refuse to do that, for writing/presenting are my loves, and if my jobs take it out of me, I wont let them.

6. RIght about now, I want to take 3 weeks off, quit all 3 jobs, go and eat and sleep for a month.

Why am I doing my PhD? I effing don't know, I don't care, and I am aware that I wouldn#t say the word 'effing' unless I didn't really effing feel it.


I will edit this post on another occasion, to add another chunk of text. With one aim: TO give you empirical evidence of the 'rollercoaster ride' we all say the bloody PhD is.

spending half a day arguing with a dogmatic non argumentator on an online forum to realise I haven't prepared my presentation for a seminar the next day.

Personally, I think works of art, all 'high culture' is as open to re-use and re-working and re-interpretation as anything else.

Personally, I think works of art, all 'high culture' is as open to re-use and re-working and re-interpretation as anything else.

CC, I dont think any of us will entertain you further.

and stop attacking people, stressed is a very thoughtful member of this forum and a great researcher.

Feel free to shadow fight of course. I as you have noticed, am no longer arguing with your points :-) even if you call it a host of Latin names..

P'haps the first time I'm surprised at our otherwise wonderful (truly) mods :-)

It was triggering a lot of debate, and much of it was actually bringing up useful issues...

Plus, some of the posts from some people were very richly written pieces of text (remembering one by Magictime in particular, but also one by Stressed, I think and one by Nadia was it using the latin..)

Anyway, respect your decision

Guys, is there any point in arguing with this person? I have suddenly lost interest because of the sheer absence of any argument from their side. Perhaps let's truly just let this drop and let them be, in the world.

I wonder if CC is a man or a woman...

Magictime, that is, in a word, *marvellous* (up):-)

Perhaps, let's just let it go.... it takes all sorts I suppose.

What is the title of this table please? Source also?

Cleverclogs, goodbye.

If it weren't for the likes of you, argumentation of the fruitful kind would have missed a damn good reason to exist.

What you have completely failed to grasp, is the sheer danger latent in the moral stance you propose. A danger, to those who walk off the beaten track, to minorities of many kinds, to alternative voices, marginalised groups, and yes, to society at large.

I shall not contribute one more word on this thread.

CC,

Let's take apart a tiny little phrase. 'It is OK' or 'It is not OK'.

First question, who decides what OK is? You? 'Larger society'? You on behalf of a 'larger society'?

Who forms this larger society? An imagined public tied together on a unified normativity?


If you cannot see that the right-wrong question lies in the things like trafficking or murdering, and not in normative perceptions adopted from moral high grounds, it is you who sufffers from blinkered vision, not the rest of the world.

Cleverclogs,

In my year and a half on this forum, I have never, till this evening, been as infuriated as I am now, so, yes, thanks.

You know what? In the western world, you belong to the time of witch hunts and burns. In the part of the world where I come from, you belong to those times, where it was morally wrong for women to live when their husbands died, and today, it is still morally wrong for many women to eat meat when widowed.

You might say 'oh, but that is unfair'. My point is, it is NOT a question of extent or degree. It is a question of us and them. Of holier than thou.

And oh, by the way. The moment you, as an 'educated' individual have decided that you are more educated than 'them', you have just proven that you haven't an iota of this thing that you flaunt so proudly - education.

An entire group of well informed, well read doctoral researchers are angered at your stance, and have, I beleive, with sufficient intellectual sophistication explained their views here and anticipated and set the grounds for an argument/debate.

All that you have proven capable of is stance-seeking, boundary-raising, fanticism.

If this weren't the liberal voice in me, I would truly be compelled to want you to just leave.

To add an instance from India. This following is an excerpt from a film I like, made about an illegal red light district in a country where this is stilll illegal. DMSC here refers to the organization of women protesting victimization, pity, illegal status, 'morality' rubbish and so on.

The real issue as below lies in the trafficking, and the 'lack of choice' that happens.

"The existing legislation in India is based on the assumption that all women in sex work are victims who need rehabilitation and protection from pimps, brothel owners and traffickers. Sex workers rights groups, both nationally and internationally, have challenged the idea that sex work is inherently violent and that all the women in the industry are exclusively victims. These groups have focused on the fact that the violence that sex workers encounter is partly the denial of legal rights and partly the stigma that the community carries. DMSC argues that sex workers are entitled to the same legal rights as any other person who is involved in other 'socially acceptable' forms of labour. Critical to the work of DMSC is the understanding that distinctions must be made between "trafficking" that implies forced and coerced prostitution and consensual sex work."

And cleverclogs, pl tell me you are not in the social scince sor humanities? For then i am astonished if you have not come across any literature that has not opened out an alternative world view to you.

======= Date Modified 16 Nov 2009 19:46:46 =======
======= Date Modified 16 Nov 2009 19:46:32 =======
Ok seriously. Cleverclogs, now I am infuriated.







What is this moral high ground?







You think sex work is 'wrong' (moral decay of society, ok whose morality? who sets the norms?)







Next what? Someone might think homosexuality is 'wrong'? (moral decay of natural norms. ok, whose nature? what's natural? who sets the norms?)







Gay marriage is wrong? Prostitution is wrong? Divorces are wrong? Women drinking is worng? Women smoking is wrong?







Where would you draw the line? you may well draw the line at any of these instances above, but cleverclogs, it is not a question of degree or extent beyond which something is right or wrong.







It is this whole moral high ground thing.







And trust me, moral decay of our society is happeneing elsewhere: in countries looting countries, in unfair war, in propaganda, in breach of equality, trust, liberty and equality.







I shall not convince you. But I feel sorry that you are sitting on a horse so high that you find yourself above these untouchable, unworthy prostitutes who are ruining the fabric of your otherwise unpolluted idyllic world, or at best, contributing to its 'pollution'





PS: hence see Chrisolinski's point and the one I made in mine, about the legalisation issue.