Feminism and How I don't Care

[Aglrinia]

This will not end well.

[Shadvskur]

I'm not exactly educated well on feminist ideals but I have been told and have had small experiences that tell me that Feminism is an extreme and an over-the-top reaction to how the world use to treat women and if they had their way the world would become what it use to be except men would be the inferiors.

I can't say much but I'd avoid a feminist unless someone can prove otherwise or I find the time to look into Feminism.
So with that said, if there are any Feminists here, I'd like you to take my opinion with a pinch of salt.

[Chumblywumbly]

...Abortion is not a live debate among feminist theorists, or feminist activists, the way pornography was or aspects of multiculturalism are. This is not a point about the merits, it is just a recognition of where the movement is today (and has been for a few decades.)

Admitting to be holding a poor knowledge of the current state of fem theory, is there now broad consensus on the pornography issue?

I was under the impression that the issue is still very much Up For Debate.

---

The one aspect of feminism I think is stupid is the academic feminism, mostly because it has strong ties to other bullshit like the postmodernist and relativist movements.

Care to explain, please ?

Please read Alan Sokal's "Beyond the Hoax" when you get a minute. It devotes a nice chapter to this. I agree with UnhealthyTruthseeker. Some radical forms of femnism attempt to overthrow scientific rationality in their approach to womanhood. It's a very scary mode of thinking.

...Despite what many think, Sokol made more of a fool of himself than anyone else in the Sokol affair.

It more seems to me that Sokol's stunt merely entrenched opinions on either side.

The analytic crowd (for want of a better term) hold it up as clear proof of the illegitimacy of po-mo, while the po-mo's see it as the analytic side just not getting it.

[Bottle]

...Abortion is not a live debate among feminist theorists, or feminist activists, the way pornography was or aspects of multiculturalism are. This is not a point about the merits, it is just a recognition of where the movement is today (and has been for a few decades.)

Admitting to be holding a poor knowledge of the current state of fem theory, is there now broad consensus on the pornography issue?

I was under the impression that the issue is still very much Up For Debate.

It's "settled" in the sense that everybody pretty much agrees that pornography currently is exploitative and harmful. It's Up For Debate in the sense that some feminists believe that pornography is INHERENTLY exploitative and harmful, while others believe that pornography could theoretically be non-exploitative and non-harmful, we just haven't gotten to that point yet.

[Birnadia]

.

[Glorious Homeland]

I just finished reading "Feminism is For Everybody: Passionate Politics" by Bell Hooks (assigned in a class by a professor), and you know what? I could honestly care less...

Do not be mistaken. I respect females and I believe they should be treated equal. And while this book claims to want to "end sexism," I see it nearly as an attack on society, a promotion of socialism, and somehow tying patriarchies with capitalism. I agree that women should get paid the same amount for equal work. I agree women should not be discriminated against in the workforce. But at the same time, give me a break.

Men usually get screwed over during divorces; women have the advantage of claiming rape when it wasn't (not always, but alot); and men have to live in a world where if you happen to have a lot of sexual partners, your considered a sexist and somehow a "chauvinist pig."

What I think annoyed me most is that the book seems to blame all the woes of women on capitalism and patriarchies. And while both are highly imperfect in many, many ways, that doesn't necessarily warrant the blame there.

So NSG what do you think of feminism? Do you consider yourself a feminist? If so why? If not, why not?

I am as much a feminist as I am a socialist; if we assume, as many older feminists say, that to seek for women to be of equal status in society to men is being a feminist, and as much as George Orwell said a socialist is one who "wants and actively seeks to depose authoritarianism".

Those whole anarchist-anti-capitalist nonsense is unrealistic. I want women to be of equal legal status to men; this means UK diverse law, by giving women more rights now is inherently sexist, and I would be a feminist to seek to change that.

[Chumblywumbly]

It's Up For Debate in the sense that some feminists believe that pornography is INHERENTLY exploitative and harmful, while others believe that pornography could theoretically be non-exploitative and non-harmful, we just haven't gotten to that point yet.

Aye, that's what I was getting at.

[Soheran]

Admitting to be holding a poor knowledge of the current state of fem theory, is there now broad consensus on the pornography issue?

No, of course not. But I don't think it would be too a strong a statement to say that (a) broadly speaking feminist attitudes and theory are substantially less anti-porn than they were a few decades ago and (b) the controversy just does not attract as much attention as it once did. Of course, I am going largely on anecdotal evidence here: I have done no survey and I am not entirely up to speed on most recent feminist theory either.

[The Araucania]

feminism is a result of capitalism, screw up that lesbians

[Gift-of-god]

feminism is a result of capitalism...

How so?

[Soviet Engineers]

The one aspect of feminism I think is stupid is the academic feminism, mostly because it has strong ties to other bullshit like the postmodernist and relativist movements.

Care to explain, please ?

Please read Alan Sokal's "Beyond the Hoax" when you get a minute. It devotes a nice chapter to this. I agree with UnhealthyTruthseeker. Some radical forms of femnism attempt to overthrow scientific rationality in their approach to womanhood. It's a very scary mode of thinking.

1. Asking NSG posters to go read a @500-page book is a pretty bad form of argument.

2. Despite what many think, Sokol made more of a fool of himself than anyone else in the Sokol affair.

3. I have to admit my recollection of Philosophy of Science is a bit rusty, but my memory of Thomas Kuhn's The Structure of Scientific Revolutions makes me particularly skeptical of these overly rigid notions of "you can't think about that!"

1. Well, Sokal's argument in the particular book in question was far better researched than an argument I could come up with on the spot, and I figured I'd direct some one truly interested in the problems of post-modern femnism to a good place to start. Also, I wasn't saying read some 500 page book (it's actually a little less than 250 pages if you don't count appendices and indexes - otherwise, something like 300 pages), I was reccomending reading a particular 20 page chapter from the book. Hardly a major inconvenience for some one who has time to "argue" things on the internet.

2. I have no comment because this statement is a non-sequitar. Why exactly does Sokol making a fool of himself say anything about the things he says in this particular book chapter? It's almost a borderline ad hominem - are you saying because you think he did something in the past that is disagreeable, the things he says therefore are not sound?

3. Thomas Kuhn never disproved scientific rationality, only the Popper method of falsifiability. Again, if you would have read Sokol's book, he goes into this as well, although I doubt you've even fully read The Structure of Scientific Revolutions if you honestly believe it supports some sort of "freedom from rational thought" idea. Kuhn simply was arguing that scientific culture can create constructs that institutionalize an idea and can therefore hold a newer idea back until it gains overwhelming traction. In no way does he imply that the science of today is the social construct of tomorrow. Rather, it means we must allow for any and all interesting new ways to test our hypotheses without trying to codify our science. This does not in any way support the post-modernist and post-structuralist position that ALL science is a social construct with a relativist truth value.

[Gift-of-god]

... Some radical forms of femnism attempt to overthrow scientific rationality in their approach to womanhood. It's a very scary mode of thinking.

Which forms of radical feminism are those?

[Tiesabre]

I don't think any man has a flame shield this strong.

I respect the OP's position but well... -ducks and covers-

[Soviet Engineers]

... Some radical forms of femnism attempt to overthrow scientific rationality in their approach to womanhood. It's a very scary mode of thinking.

Which forms of radical feminism are those?

These kinds:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Postmodern_feminism

Note the argument of Judith Butler - it is either radically untrue (that is, that sex is completely a linguistic construction, ignoring some of the most basic principals of biology and genetics) or it is such a boring truth that it need not even be said (that sex is a completely linguistic construction because our entire understanding of differences is linguistic in construction - ie this thing is yellow while this thing is blue creates division between the yellow and blue thing. There is no need for an academic to build their entire career off simple observations like this.)

[Nulono]

The modern feminist movement may be largely pro-choice, hence my identification as a "paleofeminist".

I understand. Effectively, I was conceding you your point about that aspect of the modern feminist movement--the only accurate characterization in your post.

Abortion is not a live debate among feminists because pro-life feminists were forced out or accused of not being "true" feminists, so the two camps became pretty isolated.

Is it unimaginable to you that most people of feminist convictions could have actually been convinced of the case for female reproductive autonomy? What is lurking at the bottom of this, I think, is (to go all philosophical on you) a conflation of "concept" and "conception": you see "Feminism wants equality of the sexes" in the dictionary and so you think "not abortion", but you miss how the feminist movement, at least in the United States, has historically come to the recognition that equality for women necessarily involves reproductive autonomy. In understanding what equality means, we are not bound by what people thought a century ago: our understanding has developed.

Men aren't allowed to kill our offspring.

You already know what the response to this will be, so why are you bothering?

We don't believe an embryo is "offspring" the way you do. So saying this stuff over and over is pointless. Do you have any other points, any at all, or is your entire argument founded on this one disagreement which will never get us anywhere?

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/fetus
fe·tus   [fee-tuhs] Show IPA
–noun,plural-tus·es. Embryology.
(used chiefly of viviparous mammals) the young of an animal in the womb or egg, esp. in the later stages of development when the body structures are in the recognizable form of its kind, in humans after the end of the second month of gestation.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/young
–noun
9.
those who have youth; young persons collectively: the educated young of today; a game for young and old.
10.
young offspring: a mother hen protecting her young.
—Idiom
11.
with young, (of an animal) pregnant.

[Trotskylvania]

"post-modern" is a buzzword that get's thrown around all too often. Most critiques of actual post-modern philosophy base themselves on mistaken premises as well.

[Soviet Engineers]

"post-modern" is a buzzword that get's thrown around all too often. Most critiques of actual post-modern philosophy base themselves on mistaken premises as well.

How so? If I were to say that post-modernism generally has a social constructivist approach to truth that results in a form of relativist thinking, would I be off base, or would I "just not be gettin' it, man"?

Specifically, what do you assert post-modernism "is all about"?

[Tokos]

"post-modern" is a buzzword that get's thrown around all too often. Most critiques of actual post-modern philosophy base themselves on mistaken premises as well.

It's because it's all so terribly dull and pompous that it's far better for one's mental health to critique it without reading it.

[Gift-of-god]

These kinds:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Postmodern_feminism

Note the argument of Judith Butler - it is either radically untrue (that is, that sex is completely a linguistic construction, ignoring some of the most basic principals of biology and genetics) or it is such a boring truth that it need not even be said (that sex is a completely linguistic construction because our entire understanding of differences is linguistic in construction - ie this thing is yellow while this thing is blue creates division between the yellow and blue thing. There is no need for an academic to build their entire career off simple observations like this.)

I don't think Butler is arguing that sex is completely a linguistic construction. From my reading, she is arguing that sex, if we define it as the biological aspect of gender, is influenced by social ideas of sex and gender. If you teach a girl to 'throw like a girl', her muscles will not develop in the same way that a child who is taught to throw 'like a boy'. Her biology will be influenced by social conditioning.

I don't see how that is an attempt to overthrow scientific rationality. I would also point out that Butler does not consider herself to be a postmodernist.

[Vespertilia]

You already know what the response to this will be, so why are you bothering?

We don't believe an embryo is "offspring" the way you do. So saying this stuff over and over is pointless. Do you have any other points, any at all, or is your entire argument founded on this one disagreement which will never get us anywhere?

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/fetus
(snip)

Buddy, I don't remember if you've been here at that time, but NSG has already decided that a fetus is kind of a cross between a slavedriver, a shit and a tapeworm

[Kayliea]

oh and what the OP really means by "Feminism and How I don't Care" is - "i only care about me, me, me. - please post some masculist/antifeminist bullshit ITT".

Its in human nature not to give a damn about others. Im quite sure deep down, you could care less if every poster in nationstates dropped dead.

i would find it sad if anyone died, unless they were bad people e.g. misogynists.

[Georgism]

... Some radical forms of femnism attempt to overthrow scientific rationality in their approach to womanhood. It's a very scary mode of thinking.

Which forms of radical feminism are those?

These kinds:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Postmodern_feminism

*Looks at Link*

*Skips to bottom*

*Sees Cyborg Feminism*

*Is intrigued; clicks link*

*Is gravely disappointed.*

[Georgism]

oh and what the OP really means by "Feminism and How I don't Care" is - "i only care about me, me, me. - please post some masculist/antifeminist bullshit ITT".

Its in human nature not to give a damn about others. Im quite sure deep down, you could care less if every poster in nationstates dropped dead.

i would find it sad if anyone died, unless they were bad people e.g. misogynists.

Well dang, we should just kill all Bad People^TM

[The Cat-Tribe]

The one aspect of feminism I think is stupid is the academic feminism, mostly because it has strong ties to other bullshit like the postmodernist and relativist movements.

Care to explain, please ?

Please read Alan Sokal's "Beyond the Hoax" when you get a minute. It devotes a nice chapter to this. I agree with UnhealthyTruthseeker. Some radical forms of femnism attempt to overthrow scientific rationality in their approach to womanhood. It's a very scary mode of thinking.

1. Asking NSG posters to go read a @500-page book is a pretty bad form of argument.

2. Despite what many think, Sokol made more of a fool of himself than anyone else in the Sokol affair.

3. I have to admit my recollection of Philosophy of Science is a bit rusty, but my memory of Thomas Kuhn's The Structure of Scientific Revolutions makes me particularly skeptical of these overly rigid notions of "you can't think about that!"

1. Well, Sokal's argument in the particular book in question was far better researched than an argument I could come up with on the spot, and I figured I'd direct some one truly interested in the problems of post-modern femnism to a good place to start. Also, I wasn't saying read some 500 page book (it's actually a little less than 250 pages if you don't count appendices and indexes - otherwise, something like 300 pages), I was reccomending reading a particular 20 page chapter from the book. Hardly a major inconvenience for some one who has time to "argue" things on the internet.

2. I have no comment because this statement is a non-sequitar. Why exactly does Sokol making a fool of himself say anything about the things he says in this particular book chapter? It's almost a borderline ad hominem - are you saying because you think he did something in the past that is disagreeable, the things he says therefore are not sound?

3. Thomas Kuhn never disproved scientific rationality, only the Popper method of falsifiability. Again, if you would have read Sokol's book, he goes into this as well, although I doubt you've even fully read The Structure of Scientific Revolutions if you honestly believe it supports some sort of "freedom from rational thought" idea. Kuhn simply was arguing that scientific culture can create constructs that institutionalize an idea and can therefore hold a newer idea back until it gains overwhelming traction. In no way does he imply that the science of today is the social construct of tomorrow. Rather, it means we must allow for any and all interesting new ways to test our hypotheses without trying to codify our science. This does not in any way support the post-modernist and post-structuralist position that ALL science is a social construct with a relativist truth value.

1. If you can't be bothered to even try to make Sokol-type/based arguments, why should I be bothered to find or buy and read a book the relevance of which I have only your word for and the persuasiveness of which I have grave doubts about?

2. The fact that the author of the book made an ass of himself in the Sokol Affair, which is the subject of the book, is not a mere ad hominem or non sequitur. It is directly relevant to the credibility of the source you are recommending.

3. As I admitted, it was a long time ago (in college) but I did read fully read Kuhn's The Structure of Scientific Revolutions and I rather resent the implication I am a liar. The rest of your rant is a distortion of both what I said and what post-modernism means.

I'm not saying I believe in or am a big fan of post-modernist work, but the blithe rejection of such thought in this thread on the "this isn't how we think about things" grounds is petty and small-minded.

[Tokos]

Cyborg Feminism sounds like some kind of rejoinder to the Futurists or something. Love of machines, contempt of woman, etc etc.