Feminism and How I don't Care

[The Cat-Tribe]

... 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.)

I assume you have actually read the allegedly offending works of Judith Butler rather than dismissing the works of a well-credential scholar on the basis of a few lines in Wikipedia?

[Georgism]

I assume you have actually read the allegedly offending works of Judith Butler rather than dismissing the works of a well-credential scholar on the basis of a few lines in Wikipedia?

Feminist literature? What a waste of a life that would be.

[Consaria]

I guess I am a feminist in the way of equal rights for women, but I don't like all that "women are better than men" feminism.

[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.

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

i'm not against the idea

[Soheran]

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 am not necessarily a fan of Judith Butler--I think her writing style is obnoxious and her ideas, when well-founded, are not anywhere near as new or as radical as she seems to think--but you have clearly never read her, or if you have, you have not understood what she says. The constructionist argument she advances is deeper and more nuanced than you seem to think: it is neither "Every difference between men and women, up to and including pregnancy, is a social construct" nor "Calling men 'men' and women 'women' introduces division." Her point is subtler, about the ways in which we categorize people, the lack of necessity behind those categorization systems, and the "fictions" about gender and sex those categorizations construct.

[Chumblywumbly]

I am not necessarily a fan of Judith Butler--I think her writing style is obnoxious and her ideas, when well-founded, are not anywhere near as new or as radical as she seems to think...

Quite (.pdf).

[Soheran]

I am not necessarily a fan of Judith Butler--I think her writing style is obnoxious and her ideas, when well-founded, are not anywhere near as new or as radical as she seems to think...

Quite (.pdf).

There you go.

[MisanthropicPopulism]

... 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.)

I assume you have actually read the allegedly offending works of Judith Butler rather than dismissing the works of a well-credential scholar on the basis of a few lines in Wikipedia?

Of course, another well-credentialed scholar (Susan Bordo) said basically the same thing - according to Wikipedia's citation. Of course that assumes I understand the slightest what either Soviet Engineers or Butler said and I most certainly don't understand the latter after reading an excerpt of hers.

[Globatica]

On a side note, my mind automatically spoonerized Bell Hooks into Hell Books.

Same.

Anyway, what's wrong with the way women are treated today? I don't see any sexism around me, maybe we don't have that in England or something. If a woman works hard, she gets good pay, exactly like a man.

PS. The last line wasn't meant to be sexual.

[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

i'm not against the idea

Duh. You Authoritarians are all the same really.

[Georgism]

On a side note, my mind automatically spoonerized Bell Hooks into Hell Books.

Same.

Anyway, what's wrong with the way women are treated today? I don't see any sexism around me, maybe we don't have that in England or something. If a woman works hard, she gets good pay, exactly like a man.

PS. The last line wasn't meant to be sexual.

Equal pay for equal work is not yet a reality, even here in the UK. There are also various societal attitudes that are inherently sexist, although these are much harder to combat than the legal aspect of such things.

[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.

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.

1. If you're not interested, then don't read it. My reccomendation of it was towards some one (The Southern Dictator) who wanted an explaination for why one forumer was disgusted with academic post-modern femnism, and I was reccomending a book that touches on this. Clearly you have no interest in finding out why many percieve post-mordern thought to be incompatable with scientific realism.

2. If I kill your mother and then go on to say that humanity needs its numbers thinned because of the malthusian dilemma, using my killing of your mother as the launchpad for my argument, then you can't argue that my assertation is wrong just because I made an ass out of myself for killing your mother. The book is not a self-congratulation over his hoax, it is primarily his arguments against thinkers termed "post-modernist" by most of academia on their own terms - by taking on their actual arguments. Yes, getting published in some social criticsm magazine proves nothing, just hurts feelings. That's why the book is more constructive then, say, reading the wikipedia page on Sokal's Hoax.

3. If it is a distortion of what post-modernism means, I humbly as you to assert, then, what exactly IS post-modernism, and we can have a dandy conversation about semantics.

[SUPERFISHPIE]

Yay for women! And men! And hermaphrodites! And, um, yay!
Wait a minute, that's my national motto isn't it: 'YAY YOU!!'

[Hathradic States]

I get tired of hearing about the oppressed minority.

What, just because somebody is the Majority they must be evil? That's **cking bul***it.

I believe in equal rights, but it gets real ***king old.

[Vanished shame]

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."

seems like a lot of these problems could get solved if men and women were treated equally. yes? yes.

[Kiskaanak]

I get tired of hearing about the oppressed minority.

What, just because somebody is the Majority they must be evil? That's **cking bul***it.

I believe in equal rights, but it gets real ***king old.

So you don't actually believe in equal rights. Or you believe in them but don't think it's okay for people to try to make equal rights a reality.

[You-Gi-Owe]

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?

Feminism was created by ugly women so they could more easily get ahead in business.

[The Cat-Tribe]

The feminist foremothers were vocally pro-life,

So? I am not making a definitional argument.

and plenty of feminists today are too.

There probably are some. I said "nearly all", not "each and every one."

But I sense some "No True Scotsman" logic here.

Not at all (though in some cases, like Sarah Palin, non-feminists should be called out for being what they are.) It's just an observation of the contours of what the modern feminist movement is and what it stands for. 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.)

The modern feminist movement may be largely pro-choice, hence my identification as a "paleofeminist". The definition of the word remains the same, hence "dictionary feminist". 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.

Now, I disagree with Palin on many things, but how is she a nonfeminist? The only "evidence" I've seen cited can be attributed to free-market-ism.

By what stretch of the imagination is Sarah Palin a feminist? What feminist positions does she support?

On the other hand, even setting aside her pro-life views (including even her views on contraception and stem cell research) and her running with John McCain (whose record on gender equity was abyssmal), you are still left with:

• While mayor, supported change in rules so that Wasilla charged rape victims for rape kits.
• Opposes pay equity laws
• Opposes hate crime laws
• Supports "traditional" marriage
• Opposes comprehensive sex education
• Claims there no longer is a glass ceiling
• Wants to cut funding to the Violence Against Women Act
• Targets for defeat a number of female House Representatives -- including Republicans

[Hathradic States]

I get tired of hearing about the oppressed minority.

What, just because somebody is the Majority they must be evil? That's **cking bul***it.

I believe in equal rights, but it gets real ***king old.

So you don't actually believe in equal rights. Or you believe in them but don't think it's okay for people to try to make equal rights a reality.

or try this:

I believe in equal rights, but I don't believe in people forcing them.

Equal rights should always go to a vote of the populas. If the people don't want them, then they shouldn't exist.

And I don't want to here how I should be any kinder a minority than I am to anybody else.

[EvilDarkMagicians]

Feminism was created by ugly women so they could more easily get ahead in business.

Source?

[Callisdrun]

I get tired of hearing about the oppressed minority.

What, just because somebody is the Majority they must be evil? That's **cking bul***it.

I believe in equal rights, but it gets real ***king old.

Women are actually the oppressed majority, IIRC.

And you'll stop hearing about them being oppressed when they are no longer oppressed. Pretty simple really. If you want to stop hearing about it, work towards legal and societal equality.

[Farnhamia]

Feminism was created by ugly women so they could more easily get ahead in business.

Source?

His own mind. That's the equivalent of "I got nothing but I feel compelled to post something anyway."

[Farnhamia]

I get tired of hearing about the oppressed minority.

What, just because somebody is the Majority they must be evil? That's **cking bul***it.

I believe in equal rights, but it gets real ***king old.

So you don't actually believe in equal rights. Or you believe in them but don't think it's okay for people to try to make equal rights a reality.

or try this:

I believe in equal rights, but I don't believe in people forcing them.

Equal rights should always go to a vote of the populas. If the people don't want them, then they shouldn't exist.

And I don't want to here how I should be any kinder a minority than I am to anybody else.

You want civil and human rights put to a vote? That's brilliant, really brilliant. A very good thing it doesn't work that way in the US.

[Callisdrun]

...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.

I dislike most "mainstream" pornography due to being boring and obnoxious.

Luckily, I am blessed with a vivid imagination, so written erotica/smut works fine for me.

[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.)

I assume you have actually read the allegedly offending works of Judith Butler rather than dismissing the works of a well-credential scholar on the basis of a few lines in Wikipedia?

I must admit, all I've read is Undoing Gender, not Gender Trouble, which might be why I just seem to "not get" her the way other people in this forum don't get her.

Perhaps I've lumped all post-modern femnists together into the same catagory, but my first experience with post-modern femnism was with Sandra Harding's "Whose Science? Whose Knowledge: Thinking from Women's Lives", which left a very bad taste in my mouth for its downright lunacy in its approach to science as a "masculine" organization, conflating the sociological nature of scientific organization historically with some sort of moral outrage at the actual discoveries of natural sciences themselves.

Perhaps I've just misunderstood Butler, but the argument that linguistics determines sexual biology sounds like its coming from that same field. Social conditioning indirectly affects biological development, but words are empty in and of themselves - how could simply the linguistics affect development, body type, etc.? Where is the data to back this assertion up? I find Undoing Gender itself devoid of data, and it might be a big assumption, but I'm betting Gender Trouble is likewise.