Offline Blanko

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 2471
    • View Profile
Feminism is dead
« on: May 15, 2016, 06:35:19 PM »
Bear with me, because this is something of a love letter to feminism. I’ve never had the best relationship with it and I’ve always found their methods questionable at best, but seeing what has happened to the movement in the past few years has made me increasingly more sympathetic towards them – and it’s all because feminism in and of itself no longer exists. It has been appropriated and absorbed by the broader label of progressivism, encompassing all groups that are “oppressed”, even whey they are ideological opposites. The major problem with this is that under the new label of progressivism, feminists cannot speak against other groups that exist within it or are protected by it, forcing them to abandon and betray central ideas that have existed in feminism for decades. The two major groups with which this becomes a particular issue have shot up in the hierarchy of the oppressed in the past couple years – transgenderism and Islam.

For decades feminists have taught the idea that gender is a social construct. They reject the notion that biology has a basis in how people of different genders behave and want to abolish the “harmful” stereotypes that perpetuate certain behaviours and societal expectations. Or in other words, feminists want to allow boys to play with dolls and girls to play with cars.

And then comes the transgender rights movement, trampling all over everything feminism has fought for. Trans people believe that gender is based on biology, that there is such a thing as male brain and female brain, and that it’s possible to be born in the “wrong body”. What’s more, the vast majority of trans people choose to take on stereotypical characteristics, and they champion and glorify pop culture idols (such as Caitlyn Jenner) who reinforce societal expectations of beauty by appearing in covers of magazines dressed and made up in a very stereotypical manner. This glorification of stereotypes goes so far that many pro-trans parents believe boys playing with dolls is indicative of them not being boys at all. Feminists, of course, cannot say anything about it – they simply must accept it as fact, ignore everything they’ve been saying for ages, or face being ostracised and accused of being transphobic.

Islam is an even more curious case, because its latching onto the progressive left seems to be entirely reactionary. There’s been a slow and steady escalation of the attention paid to Islam by the progressive left in the past decade – first it was with the post-9/11 terrorist scare and the “not all Muslims” campaign, then more recently it was the refugee backlash that brought it to mainstream attention. The left has been forced to adopt a heavy pro-Islam stance as a simple counteract to the anti-Islam and anti-immigration stances of the right. It has never been about protecting the rights of Muslims in and of itself, but they’ve made it aboard the social justice train on piggyback. Now you can not only not criticise immigration, but simply criticising Islam in general is hugely problematic – and this is a massive issue for feminism, because it has a long history with criticising Islam.

Oppression of women is perhaps the most important topic in feminism, and for decades Islam was used as the perfect case study for it. Women forced to be veiled, women being treated as second class citizens and rampant sexual assaults in Muslim countries were frequent topics of discussion that today you simply can no longer talk about. It’s perhaps a little ironic that two major concepts in effect in feminism today, the patriarchy and rape culture, are best exemplified in Islam and Muslim nations – but this is something feminists can’t even acknowledge. They must swallow all their dignity and integrity and are forced to employ ridiculous double standards if they are to be taken seriously. Those who refuse to do it are ostracised, ridiculed, called bigoted, transphobic, Islamophobic, silenced and refused a forum for speaking. There are many prolific examples of this, such as Julie Bindel and Christina Hoff-Summers, both very accomplished feminist authors in their own right. It’s hardly even questionable that any mainstream feminist from just a decade ago would today be considered a bigot.

Feminism has always been an easy target of criticism, but it’s hard to not feel a little sorry for them. Their entire ideology has been forcibly abducted and everything they once stood for has been diminished to nothingness. Behind the advocacy for killing all men and blatant female chauvinism was a force for good – equal treatment is an intrinsic value that I’m sure most people can agree with. Sadly, not even that seems to have survived. Rape victims in Germany are silenced because they criticise immigration. Women are told to dress a certain way and keep people at “arm’s length” to prevent being sexually assaulted. We live in a world where the right stand up for these women while the left protect the rapists. It’s not the future feminists wanted – and it’s uncertain whether real feminist values can ever make a return from the grasp of the progressive left.

To open this up for discussion: can classical feminism make a return or is it gone for good? Is the world headed in a better direction or is it regressing? Personally, I feel like I owe a small apology – for long I was a harsh critic of feminism, but I have to admit, I’m a little sad now that it’s gone.

Re: Feminism is dead
« Reply #1 on: May 15, 2016, 07:49:17 PM »
i couldn't make it past the naiveté of the second paragraph.

first read this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_charity
next read this: https://excoradfeminisms.files.wordpress.com/2010/07/intro_to_feminist_thought_a_more_comprehensive_intro.pdf

shitty teenagers on tumblr don't actually represent the peak of feminist intellectual thought.  you can keep assuming that they do, if you like, but it's likely to keep causing these kinds of misconceptions.
I have visited from prestigious research institutions of the highest caliber, to which only our administrator holds with confidence.

*

Offline Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 16073
  • (◕˽ ◕ ✿)
    • View Profile
Re: Feminism is dead
« Reply #2 on: May 15, 2016, 08:08:50 PM »
shitty teenagers on tumblr don't actually represent the peak of feminist intellectual thought.  you can keep assuming that they do, if you like, but it's likely to keep causing these kinds of misconceptions.
Let's say we don't disagree and that there actually is a difference. What, then, is "real" feminism?

Is it Wallström and Sweden's "Feminist foreign policy"? We both know how that turned out.
Is it the modern American college campus? We have a duty to fight, we have a duty to win. (We don't, apparently, have a duty to expand intellectually...)
Is it Emma Watson, Beyoncé, and a bunch of other "feminist" celebrities who found a way to make an easy buck out of proclaiming a double standard just loudly enough to be heard?
Or is the study of feminist glaciology the current peak of feminist intellectual thought?
Herstory, maybe? Or is that just shitty tumblr teenagers being shitty 30 years before tumblr existed?

Don't tell us what feminism isn't. Show us what it is and the rest will hopefully become obvious.

How much, exactly, are you willing to ascribe to the No True Scotsman fallacy? Are you willing to dismiss the majority of the movement as "just shitty tumblr teenagers"?
« Last Edit: May 15, 2016, 08:16:12 PM by SexWarrior »
Read the FAQ before asking your question - chances are we already addressed it.
Follow the Flat Earth Society on Twitter and Facebook!

If we are not speculating then we must assume

Offline Blanko

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 2471
    • View Profile
Re: Feminism is dead
« Reply #3 on: May 15, 2016, 10:04:37 PM »
Aside from the obvious logical fallacy, I would consider it to be quite derogatory towards accomplished feminist academics to compare them to or mistake them with tumblr feminists. I'm assuming you're suggesting only tumblr feminists believe in gender as a social construct, which is demonstrably and blatantly false.

Re: Feminism is dead
« Reply #4 on: May 15, 2016, 10:44:27 PM »
Let's say we don't disagree and that there actually is a difference. What, then, is "real" feminism?

Don't tell us what feminism isn't. Show us what it is and the rest will hopefully become obvious.

How much, exactly, are you willing to ascribe to the No True Scotsman fallacy? Are you willing to dismiss the majority of the movement as "just shitty tumblr teenagers"?

you appear to me to think i'm saying that idiots on tumblr don't count as real feminists.  i'm not.  i'm not drawing on any distinction between authentic and inauthentic feminists, and i think such distinctions are nearly-always invidious.

what i said was that shitty teenagers on tumblr don't actually represent the peak of feminist intellectual thought.  as in, they don't represent the most sound and valid feminist beliefs.  i would assert that they don't even represent feminism as an archetype because there is no such thing as an archetypal feminist.  the diversity of belief within that heading is too broad for archetypes to be meaningful.

if it helps, my response is structurally the same as it would be if blanko had posted a thread titled "christianity is dead" and went on the describe how cathlolic ideology has been rendered inert by its uselessness and internal contradictions.  catholics aren't the only christians.  even if they're the most important/loudest/highest leverage christians, there's still an enormous diversity of christian thought that cannot be discounted from an analysis of the net-benefits of christian beliefs in general, or the validity of the beliefs of other christians who stand in fundamental opposition to one or more catholic beliefs.

more generally, the validity of catholic beliefs has almost nothing to do with the validity of christian belief in general, or of the validity of other christian denominations that are opposed to catholicism.

(i'm not religious, i just figure everyone is already familiar with the nuances of the material)

I'm assuming you're suggesting only tumblr feminists believe in gender as a social construct, which is demonstrably and blatantly false.

uh, what?  how did you get that from what i said?  i'm saying the opposite of that.

i'm suggesting that this quote
Quote
For decades feminists have taught the idea that gender is a social construct. They reject the notion that biology has a basis in how people of different genders behave and want to abolish the “harmful” stereotypes that perpetuate certain behaviours and societal expectations. Or in other words, feminists want to allow boys to play with dolls and girls to play with cars.
displays such a profound ignorance of the diversity of feminist thought (including what is actually taught in a classroom setting) that i can't take your post seriously.

i'm saying that it makes exactly as much sense to me as a sentence that begins "for decades christians have taught the idea..."
« Last Edit: May 15, 2016, 10:58:32 PM by garygreen »
I have visited from prestigious research institutions of the highest caliber, to which only our administrator holds with confidence.

Offline Blanko

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 2471
    • View Profile
Re: Feminism is dead
« Reply #5 on: May 15, 2016, 11:07:05 PM »
Well, you admitted yourself that you didn't even read my post, so it's no wonder you resort to making these blatantly invalid comparisons. I never said a certain school of thought is indicative of archetypal feminism or representative of it in general, you're just making the assumption it's somehow relevant because you didn't even read the entire post.

Re: Feminism is dead
« Reply #6 on: May 16, 2016, 12:35:51 AM »
Well, you admitted yourself that you didn't even read my post, so it's no wonder you resort to making these blatantly invalid comparisons. I never said a certain school of thought is indicative of archetypal feminism or representative of it in general, you're just making the assumption it's somehow relevant because you didn't even read the entire post.

i read it.  it's just a ton of hasty generalizations, hence my prodding that you're treating feminism as a monolithic ideology.  you're taking one subset of feminist rhetoric and treating it as an archetype for the entire discipline.  maybe idiot fascists have trouble making sense of their beliefs when confronted with the middle east or whatever, but i guess i just don't get why that means the idea of social and political equality for women (or anyone else for that matter) is somehow dead.

« Last Edit: May 16, 2016, 01:14:37 AM by garygreen »
I have visited from prestigious research institutions of the highest caliber, to which only our administrator holds with confidence.

Offline Blanko

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 2471
    • View Profile
Re: Feminism is dead
« Reply #7 on: May 16, 2016, 01:18:11 AM »
i read it.

Did you do that just now, or were you lying earlier?

Quote
it's just a ton of hasty generalizations, hence my prodding that you're treating feminism as a monolithic ideology.

Examples != generalizations

Quote
you're taking one subset of feminist rhetoric and treating it as an archetype for the entire discipline.

I just said I'm not. Did you fail to read my posts again?

Quote
for every generalization of feminism you make, there is a substantial and influential subset of feminists who staunchly believe, and champion, the exact opposite viewpoint.  perhaps the only thing 'feminists' agree on is that political and social inequality is bad.  and even that statement could be angrily rejected by some feminist thinkers.

That is not relevant, because I'm not making generalizations.

And since you decided to edit half of your post...

Quote
maybe idiot fascists have trouble making sense of their beliefs when confronted with the middle east or whatever, but i guess i just don't get why that means the idea of social and political equality for women (or anyone else for that matter) is somehow dead.

The idea itself isn't dead, but feminists have lost the ability to gain an audience and to be taken seriously if they attempt to advocate it without taking other targets of the progressive left into consideration. That is what I mean by feminism being dead: it can no longer exist outside of the confines of the progressive left without being faced with ridicule and accusations of bigotry. Now feminism is merely a part of the progressive left, and the people who advocate it are progressivists. Yes, feminists have and do disagree with each other, but in the past they haven't had to make concessions or adopt double standards to gain a platform.
« Last Edit: May 16, 2016, 01:27:51 AM by Blanko »

George

Re: Feminism is dead
« Reply #8 on: May 16, 2016, 03:32:57 AM »
On the notion of intersectionality.  I'm reminded of how some videos chronicling street harassment were criticized for showing mostly black people who were shown catcalling the women.  Or the new distaff Ghostbusters movie that shows the only black character being the only one who's an uneducated layman, as well as a tired "oh hell naaaaawwwww" stereotype.

I'm not sure I understand what's being argued about transgender people.  Perhaps there's some confusion over the fact that "transgender" is often used as an umbrella term for the trans community, but when people get hormone treatments and operations, what they're looking to change is their biological sex, not their gender.  I don't know too many trans people myself, so I don't know how stereotypical they tend to be, but I would guess that a big part of the desire to be a woman is to feel feminine and do feminine things, so most trans women want to overtly celebrate their femininity.

I agree about Islamic countries and immigrants potentially bringing their misogyny with them.  Sure, not all Muslims and all that, but Islam as a whole sucks right now.  They need to get their shit together and join the twenty-first century, and politicians, the media, and (unfortunately) progressives need to stop being so defensive of their shittiness.

Re: Feminism is dead
« Reply #9 on: May 16, 2016, 04:16:51 AM »
Did you do that just now, or were you lying earlier?

i read it after you replied to my first post.

The idea itself isn't dead, but feminists have lost the ability to gain an audience and to be taken seriously if they attempt to advocate it without taking other targets of the progressive left into consideration. That is what I mean by feminism being dead: it can no longer exist outside of the confines of the progressive left without being faced with ridicule and accusations of bigotry. Now feminism is merely a part of the progressive left, and the people who advocate it are progressivists. Yes, feminists have and do disagree with each other, but in the past they haven't had to make concessions or adopt double standards to gain a platform.

this is the sort of generalization i'm talking about.  it's nonsense.  literally.  here is an example of a feminist, one you yourself said was an important author, participating in the very argument that you seem to think is over, and taking the exact view you portray as being impossible or whatever.  how does she fit into your description of feminist as "merely part of the progressive left?"

http://standpointmag.co.uk/node/6360/full
Quote
Following last November’s jihadist attacks in Paris, I wanted to find out how the divided women’s movement was dealing with the aftermath of such an outrageous assault on France’s freedom. French feminists have long been divided over Islam. Some argue that it is possible to redefine and reinterpret the teachings of the Koran to better suit it to equality between the sexes. But secularists insist that Islam has the subjugation of women and girls at its heart. The polarisation of views was compounded by the law against the wearing of the veil (and other visible religious artefacts) that came into force in France in 2004, and remains today.

Islamic feminists, as defined by researcher Stephanie Latte Abdallah, “claim the right to an interpretation (of the Koran) that promotes gender equality, new roles in rituals and religious practices, changes in the areas of family law, criminal law, and legal and political practices”.

The Left has allowed its tendency to blame the West for everything to offer a justification for terrorism as resistance to colonialism, imperialism and capitalism. As a lifelong feminist, and firmly of the Left, I have long been bitterly disappointed with those who supposedly campaign for women’s rights yet capitulate to Islamofascist men. Such women, in the UK, France and other European countries, have given their support to Sharia courts, the wearing of the full-face veil, arranged marriage, female genital mutilation (FGM), and gender segregation in public places. Supporting traditional Islam flies in the face of feminism, and even of basic equality between men and women.

Ana Pak is an Iranian secular feminist who works with refugees arriving in France from Iran, Afghanistan and Syria. Pak grew up during Khomeini’s rule. “The word Islamophobic comes from 1979 when [Ayatollah] Khomeini came to power and women went to the streets and marched to be free of the veil,” she says. “Khomeini and the Islamists obliged them to wear the veil, and that’s when they started calling these women Islamophobic.”

Pak was forced to leave Iran for France, having been arrested several times for campaigning against theocracy in Iran. Having escaped prison, she expected to be able to continue her anti-Islam activism in the democratic, secular country of her exile. “I was shocked to find that the French Left was capitulating to the Islamists, and that I was soon labelled as Islamophobic for resisting its doctrine. I have never stopped working against or fighting Islamists, in Iran first of all, and then in France. In Iran I was involved with the Left, but the Left has lost its raison d’être. Now the Left use the same words that the Islamists have used in their own campaign.”
« Last Edit: May 16, 2016, 04:35:44 AM by garygreen »
I have visited from prestigious research institutions of the highest caliber, to which only our administrator holds with confidence.

*

Offline Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 16073
  • (◕˽ ◕ ✿)
    • View Profile
Re: Feminism is dead
« Reply #10 on: May 16, 2016, 01:53:32 PM »
you appear to me to think i'm saying that idiots on tumblr don't count as real feminists.  i'm not.  i'm not drawing on any distinction between authentic and inauthentic feminists, and i think such distinctions are nearly-always invidious.

what i said was that shitty teenagers on tumblr don't actually represent the peak of feminist intellectual thought.  as in, they don't represent the most sound and valid feminist beliefs.  i would assert that they don't even represent feminism as an archetype because there is no such thing as an archetypal feminist.  the diversity of belief within that heading is too broad for archetypes to be meaningful.

if it helps, my response is structurally the same as it would be if blanko had posted a thread titled "christianity is dead" and went on the describe how cathlolic ideology has been rendered inert by its uselessness and internal contradictions.  catholics aren't the only christians.  even if they're the most important/loudest/highest leverage christians, there's still an enormous diversity of christian thought that cannot be discounted from an analysis of the net-benefits of christian beliefs in general, or the validity of the beliefs of other christians who stand in fundamental opposition to one or more catholic beliefs.

more generally, the validity of catholic beliefs has almost nothing to do with the validity of christian belief in general, or of the validity of other christian denominations that are opposed to catholicism.

(i'm not religious, i just figure everyone is already familiar with the nuances of the material)
Okay, but you're still talking about what [the peak of] feminism['s intellectual thought or whatever] isn't. I'd like to hear your opinion regarding what it is.

Don't tell us what feminism isn't. Show us what it is and the rest will hopefully become obvious.
Read the FAQ before asking your question - chances are we already addressed it.
Follow the Flat Earth Society on Twitter and Facebook!

If we are not speculating then we must assume

*

Offline rooster

  • *
  • Posts: 4139
    • View Profile
Re: Feminism is dead
« Reply #11 on: May 16, 2016, 05:15:54 PM »
Hmm, very interesting post, Blanko.

The transgender point is especially interesting. I've noticed that when little boys want to wear dresses or paint their nails, their parents have a tendency to label them a girl now. Before, the point was to say that it's okay to represent your gender however you want. You can still be a boy and wear dresses, just like you can still be a girl that likes sports and cars. You shouldn't have to change your sex in order to behave the way you want to. I had never considered that feeding into the stereotype of what is feminine/masculine could be destroying feminism.

Offline Blanko

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 2471
    • View Profile
Re: Feminism is dead
« Reply #12 on: May 16, 2016, 05:42:21 PM »
Did you do that just now, or were you lying earlier?

i read it after you replied to my first post.

The idea itself isn't dead, but feminists have lost the ability to gain an audience and to be taken seriously if they attempt to advocate it without taking other targets of the progressive left into consideration. That is what I mean by feminism being dead: it can no longer exist outside of the confines of the progressive left without being faced with ridicule and accusations of bigotry. Now feminism is merely a part of the progressive left, and the people who advocate it are progressivists. Yes, feminists have and do disagree with each other, but in the past they haven't had to make concessions or adopt double standards to gain a platform.

this is the sort of generalization i'm talking about.  it's nonsense.  literally.  here is an example of a feminist, one you yourself said was an important author, participating in the very argument that you seem to think is over, and taking the exact view you portray as being impossible or whatever.  how does she fit into your description of feminist as "merely part of the progressive left?"

http://standpointmag.co.uk/node/6360/full
Quote
Following last November’s jihadist attacks in Paris, I wanted to find out how the divided women’s movement was dealing with the aftermath of such an outrageous assault on France’s freedom. French feminists have long been divided over Islam. Some argue that it is possible to redefine and reinterpret the teachings of the Koran to better suit it to equality between the sexes. But secularists insist that Islam has the subjugation of women and girls at its heart. The polarisation of views was compounded by the law against the wearing of the veil (and other visible religious artefacts) that came into force in France in 2004, and remains today.

Islamic feminists, as defined by researcher Stephanie Latte Abdallah, “claim the right to an interpretation (of the Koran) that promotes gender equality, new roles in rituals and religious practices, changes in the areas of family law, criminal law, and legal and political practices”.

The Left has allowed its tendency to blame the West for everything to offer a justification for terrorism as resistance to colonialism, imperialism and capitalism. As a lifelong feminist, and firmly of the Left, I have long been bitterly disappointed with those who supposedly campaign for women’s rights yet capitulate to Islamofascist men. Such women, in the UK, France and other European countries, have given their support to Sharia courts, the wearing of the full-face veil, arranged marriage, female genital mutilation (FGM), and gender segregation in public places. Supporting traditional Islam flies in the face of feminism, and even of basic equality between men and women.

Ana Pak is an Iranian secular feminist who works with refugees arriving in France from Iran, Afghanistan and Syria. Pak grew up during Khomeini’s rule. “The word Islamophobic comes from 1979 when [Ayatollah] Khomeini came to power and women went to the streets and marched to be free of the veil,” she says. “Khomeini and the Islamists obliged them to wear the veil, and that’s when they started calling these women Islamophobic.”

Pak was forced to leave Iran for France, having been arrested several times for campaigning against theocracy in Iran. Having escaped prison, she expected to be able to continue her anti-Islam activism in the democratic, secular country of her exile. “I was shocked to find that the French Left was capitulating to the Islamists, and that I was soon labelled as Islamophobic for resisting its doctrine. I have never stopped working against or fighting Islamists, in Iran first of all, and then in France. In Iran I was involved with the Left, but the Left has lost its raison d’être. Now the Left use the same words that the Islamists have used in their own campaign.”

Anyone can say anything, but that doesn't mean their words have any influence or are taken seriously by anyone. I could say "Hitler did nothing wrong" but I could hardly lead a movement and gain any sort of influence with that ideology. The point is that these feminists who do not subscribe to the progressive left ideology do not have any of the power and influence they once had. How much harassment and death threats do you think Bindel received from progressives for talking about these subjects? Do you think feminists like her can do anything to protect rape victims of refugees in Germany? That's what I mean by feminism being a part of the progressive left; the only way feminism still has power and influence is by submitting to progressive left ideology, which means many mainstream views as I have pointed out no longer hold any ground in politics or in the media.

Moreover, I think you're getting way too hung up on a small detail and taking it way too literally. If I were to say "the KKK is dead", I'm sure you would understand what I mean by that - yes, you could be pedantic and point out it technically still exists, but they don't hold any of the power and influence they once did, making them irrelevant as a movement. The same is true of feminism outside of the progressive left.

Re: Feminism is dead
« Reply #13 on: May 17, 2016, 03:31:22 PM »
you appear to me to think i'm saying that idiots on tumblr don't count as real feminists.  i'm not.  i'm not drawing on any distinction between authentic and inauthentic feminists, and i think such distinctions are nearly-always invidious.

what i said was that shitty teenagers on tumblr don't actually represent the peak of feminist intellectual thought.  as in, they don't represent the most sound and valid feminist beliefs.  i would assert that they don't even represent feminism as an archetype because there is no such thing as an archetypal feminist.  the diversity of belief within that heading is too broad for archetypes to be meaningful.

if it helps, my response is structurally the same as it would be if blanko had posted a thread titled "christianity is dead" and went on the describe how cathlolic ideology has been rendered inert by its uselessness and internal contradictions.  catholics aren't the only christians.  even if they're the most important/loudest/highest leverage christians, there's still an enormous diversity of christian thought that cannot be discounted from an analysis of the net-benefits of christian beliefs in general, or the validity of the beliefs of other christians who stand in fundamental opposition to one or more catholic beliefs.

more generally, the validity of catholic beliefs has almost nothing to do with the validity of christian belief in general, or of the validity of other christian denominations that are opposed to catholicism.

(i'm not religious, i just figure everyone is already familiar with the nuances of the material)
Okay, but you're still talking about what [the peak of] feminism['s intellectual thought or whatever] isn't. I'd like to hear your opinion regarding what it is.

Don't tell us what feminism isn't. Show us what it is and the rest will hopefully become obvious.

i'm not being coy; to me it sounds like you're asking something like "don't tell us what the peak of fiction isn't, just tell us what you think it is."  i'm not trying to tell you what fiction you should like or which is the "best."  i'm only saying that dime-store romance novels probably aren't the best that the genre has to offer.  that's not to say that dime-store novels don't count as fiction, or even that there aren't some really good ones, just that it's hard to believe that they represent the highest quality work of the genre.

that said, i'll try to answer as best i can.

if you're asking where i think the highest quality work in feminism comes from, regardless of how much or little i agree with their conclusions, then i would have to say it typically comes from professional writers/academics.  i think those are the writers who have the greatest familiarity with the subject material.  if i pull up a paper on feminism from a philosophy journal, then i can be very confident, even if i disagree with its conclusions, that it's been refereed by a journal committee, well-edited, substantiated with primary source material, etc.  this is the source material from which other thinkers and activists (and idiots on tumblr) are drawing to come to their own conclusions.

if you're asking which feminist material i personally think comes to the best conclusions, ie the ones i most agree with, then for me that work comes from a few authors i admire: i like what simone de beauvoir has to say about the androgyny of rationality; i like what michel foucault has to say about the relationship between knowledge and freedom; i like what richard rorty has to say about morality and relativism.  foucault and rorty weren't writing about feminism specifically, but their contributions to the field are foundational.

is that helpful at all?
I have visited from prestigious research institutions of the highest caliber, to which only our administrator holds with confidence.

Re: Feminism is dead
« Reply #14 on: May 17, 2016, 03:41:36 PM »
in an effort to be more concrete about generalizations, here's an example: you say, "For decades feminists have taught the idea that gender is a social construct. They reject the notion that biology has a basis in how people of different genders behave and want to abolish the “harmful” stereotypes that perpetuate certain behaviours and societal expectations. Or in other words, feminists want to allow boys to play with dolls and girls to play with cars."

this isn't precisely wrong, but it's a gross oversimplification.  beauvoir and foucault would both agree that gender is a social construct; the social behavior of women (or anyone else) is imposed on them.  they radically disagree about the extent to which this is true and its implications.  beauvoir believed that behavior is imposed, but rationality is androgynous and universally accessible.  she viewed the liberation of gender from social construction as an existentialist exercise in which true freedom is only possible internally.  liberation and self-actualization are matters of work and effort on and by the self.

foucault, on the other hand, agrees that gender is socially constructed, but disagrees that liberation as described by beauvoir is possible.  he criticizes the very concept of rationality and freedom that beauvoir champions, and he says that they don't exist.  foucault sees every aspect of the self as socially constructed, right down to our very understanding of what it means to be rational and free.  he would have a completely different prescription for the middle east than would beauvoir, even though they agree with the premise that gender is a social construct.  they would also say completely different things about transgender-ness.

in other words, to say that such a philosophy can be reduced to "feminists want to allow boys to play with dolls and girls to play with cars" is...misinformed.  i know you're not being 100% literal, but it's not just a little off the mark.  it's the opposite of the truth.

That's what I mean by feminism being a part of the progressive left; the only way feminism still has power and influence is by submitting to progressive left ideology, which means many mainstream views as I have pointed out no longer hold any ground in politics or in the media.

south park is one of the most popular comedies in america and has been for almost two decades.  they regularly lambaste the left from a libertarian point of view that is wholly in line with the 'classical feminist' view you describe.  they spent a whole season last fall making fun of space spaces and caitlyn jenner.  i have no doubt that they received criticism for their show, but that's true of everything.  they're a popular part of the media taking exactly the libertarian view of feminism that you claim is impossible to have without everyone trying to murder you or whatever.

that's just an anecdote, but what i'm getting at is that you're ignoring that there is an important segment of the population that 100% agrees with you and also is taken seriously.

you're a 'classical feminist,' are you not?  you said yourself that you agree that women deserve the same political liberties as men.  maybe you're not on board with the full third wave and all, but you don't diverge from them at the first wave.  why don't you count as a classical feminist voice that is opposing the folks you disagree with?  i hope i'm making sense right now, but i'm just trying to get at why only progressives count as feminists for you.

Moreover, I think you're getting way too hung up on a small detail and taking it way too literally. If I were to say "the KKK is dead", I'm sure you would understand what I mean by that - yes, you could be pedantic and poin out it technically still exists, but they don't hold any of the power and influence they once did, making them irrelevant as a movement. The same is true of feminism outside of the progressive left.

not trying to be pedantic.  i'm saying that the thing you say exists not only exists, but is a powerful force.  i'm having the same reaction that i have to folks where i live complaining about how the left is taking over everything.  i mean, congress is a gop majority and the most popular man in america right now is one of the most conservative gop nominees...ever.  this weird notion that conservatives aren't important or aren't allowed to speak is, to me, just complete and utter nonsense that ignores basic facts of reality.  not trying to be a dick, i just don't see why the conservative voices who are important somehow don't count in this analysis.
« Last Edit: May 17, 2016, 04:04:08 PM by garygreen »
I have visited from prestigious research institutions of the highest caliber, to which only our administrator holds with confidence.

*

Offline Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 16073
  • (◕˽ ◕ ✿)
    • View Profile
Re: Feminism is dead
« Reply #15 on: May 19, 2016, 08:37:53 AM »
this is the source material from which other thinkers and activists (and idiots on tumblr) are drawing to come to their own conclusions.
I think this is where we disagree. In my experience (and yeah, this is entirely subjective and it's completely possible that I was just exposed to a non-representative sample of tumblr/Jezebel feminists), the "common" Internet feminist does very little to change the source material. Ideas like "herstory" are decades old, and they largely maintain their current form - it's just that now they're being popularised by echo chambers and undoing whatever good there may have been in feminism in the first place.

Okay, undoing is too strong a word, it's not like we'll suddenly take away women's rights just because the majority of activists are dumb. Perhaps I should go with "impeding" instead.

is that helpful at all?
Yeah, that's pretty much exactly what I was asking for, thanks.

you're a 'classical feminist,' are you not?  you said yourself that you agree that women deserve the same political liberties as men.  maybe you're not on board with the full third wave and all, but you don't diverge from them at the first wave.  why don't you count as a classical feminist voice that is opposing the folks you disagree with?  i hope i'm making sense right now, but i'm just trying to get at why only progressives count as feminists for you.
I know the question isn't directed at me, but if I can add my two cents:

To me, it feels like the term "feminist" has evolved to mean something much more than its strict dictionary definition. And yes, I'm gonna be that obnoxious caricature from that one cartoon who immediately goes "Whoa, you're a feminist? Why do you hate men?" Again, this is mostly due to my personal experiences. I've been stuck on a university campus (in various roles) for the past 6-ish years, and the local feminist society comprises some of the most vitriolic and hateful women I've met in my life. When I go online, the vast majority of self-identifying feminists I see are more or less of the same kind. Of course, I could point to counter-examples like Christina Hoff Sommers (I don't entirely agree with some of the things she says, but overall I think she's quite reasonable), but most of the time when I try to refer to her as a feminist, I'll receive the response along the lines of "no, you idiot, she's not a feminist, she just calls herself one; she's actually an anti-feminist/MRA/Joseph Stalin".

I'm sure there are other people out there who identify as feminists and who aren't batshit. But, as far as I can see, they have no power in society (I genuinely can't think of anything good that's happened recently that openly signed itself with the word "feminism" - even if it may have been feminist in nature by the old definition), while the "bad" feminists do have a significant amount of power. Or, well, enough to propagate false statistics to such prominence that the US President starts citing them, earnestly believing that he's doing good. (Also, Ghostbusters)
« Last Edit: May 19, 2016, 08:50:20 AM by SexWarrior »
Read the FAQ before asking your question - chances are we already addressed it.
Follow the Flat Earth Society on Twitter and Facebook!

If we are not speculating then we must assume

Offline Blanko

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 2471
    • View Profile
Re: Feminism is dead
« Reply #16 on: May 19, 2016, 09:32:16 AM »
in an effort to be more concrete about generalizations, here's an example: you say, "For decades feminists have taught the idea that gender is a social construct. They reject the notion that biology has a basis in how people of different genders behave and want to abolish the “harmful” stereotypes that perpetuate certain behaviours and societal expectations. Or in other words, feminists want to allow boys to play with dolls and girls to play with cars."

this isn't precisely wrong, but it's a gross oversimplification.[...]in other words, to say that such a philosophy can be reduced to "feminists want to allow boys to play with dolls and girls to play with cars" is...misinformed.  i know you're not being 100% literal, but it's not just a little off the mark.  it's the opposite of the truth.

Why do you keep going back to accusing me of making generalizations? I already told you, examples are not generalizations. I never said this is what all feminists think, or even in general.

Quote
south park is one of the most popular comedies in america and has been for almost two decades.  they regularly lambaste the left from a libertarian point of view that is wholly in line with the 'classical feminist' view you describe.  they spent a whole season last fall making fun of space spaces and caitlyn jenner.  i have no doubt that they received criticism for their show, but that's true of everything.  they're a popular part of the media taking exactly the libertarian view of feminism that you claim is impossible to have without everyone trying to murder you or whatever.

If a satirical cartoon for children compares favourably to non-progressive left feminism and holds the same political power (none), I'd say that's a point in my favour. I would actually consider the subject material of South Park "things you can't talk about", they just do it in spite of the risks involved, in part because satire is still (for now) more protected in America than actual ideological views.

Quote
that's just an anecdote, but what i'm getting at is that you're ignoring that there is an important segment of the population that 100% agrees with you and also is taken seriously.

Nobody takes South Park seriously.

Quote
you're a 'classical feminist,' are you not?  you said yourself that you agree that women deserve the same political liberties as men.  maybe you're not on board with the full third wave and all, but you don't diverge from them at the first wave.  why don't you count as a classical feminist voice that is opposing the folks you disagree with?  i hope i'm making sense right now, but i'm just trying to get at why only progressives count as feminists for you.

No, I'm not any kind of feminist because I don't identify as one.

I just think "classical feminist voice" is a bit of an oxymoron. To me it falls in the same category as "racist voice". It's unwanted, non-influential and dismissed out of hand.

Quote
not trying to be pedantic.  i'm saying that the thing you say exists not only exists, but is a powerful force.  i'm having the same reaction that i have to folks where i live complaining about how the left is taking over everything.  i mean, congress is a gop majority and the most popular man in america right now is one of the most conservative gop nominees...ever.  this weird notion that conservatives aren't important or aren't allowed to speak is, to me, just complete and utter nonsense that ignores basic facts of reality.  not trying to be a dick, i just don't see why the conservative voices who are important somehow don't count in this analysis.

That's cool, but I didn't say anything about conservatives.

Maybe you should look at this from an outside perspective. You Americans still have it fairly good because you actually respect free speech, but here in Europe people literally get jailed for criticising immigration or transgender issues. Even in America, you can supposedly get fined for misgendering people.

*

Offline Jura-Glenlivet

  • *
  • Posts: 1537
  • Life is meaningless & everything dies.
    • View Profile
Re: Feminism is dead
« Reply #17 on: May 19, 2016, 10:59:54 AM »

 but here in Europe people literally get jailed for criticising immigration or transgender issues.

Bullshit.
Just to be clear, you are all terrific, but everything you say is exactly what a moron would say.

*

Offline rooster

  • *
  • Posts: 4139
    • View Profile
Re: Feminism is dead
« Reply #18 on: May 19, 2016, 12:35:44 PM »
I think a lot of the problem comes from people identifying as "feminist". IMO, there shouldn't be a word for wanting equal opportunity/rights for women. I mean, there's not a word for wanting equal opportunity/rights for any other group of people, so why just for women?

So if you believe in the very basic "equality" for women as feminism, you don't need to call yourself a feminist (but some still do). You're just a rational person. But most of the people who identify as feminist are usually vitriolic and hateful and want more than equality for women.

Now if you support Islam, which is a sexist religion, that is pretty much the opposite of feminism so I don't understand how you can support both ideals unless you want to change Islam itself.

And transgender people aren't necessarily undoing feminism, but Blanko raised some very interesting points. In the long run, wouldn't it be healthier to teach people that they can identify and behave however they want regardless of their sex? These days it seems like people are more quick to label a biological girl a "boy" if she's not a traditional girl and that is extremely unhealthy. Let the damn girl be a tomboy or a lesbian and just accept her vagina. Maybe if we thought more along these lines people wouldn't suffer from gender dysphoria as much.

"The American College of Pediatricians urges educators and legislators to reject all policies that condition children to accept as normal a life of chemical and surgical impersonation of the opposite sex. Facts — not ideology — determine reality." Define who you are however you want, your sex shouldn't inhibit that.
« Last Edit: May 19, 2016, 12:38:17 PM by rooster »

George

Re: Feminism is dead
« Reply #19 on: May 23, 2016, 01:11:33 AM »
If a satirical cartoon for children compares favourably to non-progressive left feminism and holds the same political power (none), I'd say that's a point in my favour. I would actually consider the subject material of South Park "things you can't talk about", they just do it in spite of the risks involved, in part because satire is still (for now) more protected in America than actual ideological views...Nobody takes South Park seriously.

I feel like this is on par with saying that nobody takes late-night talk shows seriously, because that's just comedy and not "real" news.  South Park has received a lot of academic and journalistic attention for its political stances, especially in the later years of the show, as the political and social commentary has slowly risen in prominence.  Plenty of people do take it seriously and look for a message under the humor, and the showrunners have absolutely been taking advantage of this and trying to send a message under the humor.  Like garygreen said, they spent the entirety of the last season ranting about how stupid political correctness is.  A big seasonal arc was built around it, and this from the people who had previously demonstrated their commitment to continuity by notoriously killing the same character in about a hundred different ways over the course of the show.

Quote
Even in America, you can supposedly get fined for misgendering people.

That's an administrative law for businesses in NYC.  You're not allowed to deliberately misgender your tenants and employees in the same way that you're not allowed to call them racial slurs or sexually harass them.  You might disagree with such laws, but it's not like this sort of regulation is a new thing that was quickly dreamed up for the sole benefit of transgender people.

So if you believe in the very basic "equality" for women as feminism, you don't need to call yourself a feminist (but some still do). You're just a rational person.

You don't need to be irrational to have biases, to treat certain groups of people differently to others, to allow stereotypes to color your view of certain groups, to go along with popular trends or conventional wisdom even if you have misgivings about it, and so on.  Many behaviors or practices that feminists or other progressives object to are subtle or unconscious, far from an overt act of oppression deliberately orchestrated by an evil villain to flaunt his superiority.  Take "mansplaining," for example.  Do the men who do that really think to themselves, "Ah, a woman, my intellectual inferior, is attempting to understand a subject.  It is my duty as a manly man to educate her on this matter of which she must be ignorant!"?  Or consider the Bechdel test.  I don't believe that so many screenwriters have such limited experience at life that they think that women spend their entire lives as satellites to a man.  These issues are a lot more complicated than "Do you hate women? y/n," and are deserving of proper analysis.  Granted, there are right ways and wrong ways to go about this sort of analysis, but I don't believe in throwing out a worthwhile message just because of a less-than-ideal messenger.

Quote
"The American College of Pediatricians urges educators and legislators to reject all policies that condition children to accept as normal a life of chemical and surgical impersonation of the opposite sex. Facts — not ideology — determine reality."

That's a crank group you're quoting.  Genuine, well-respected medical professional associations, like the American Psychiatric Association and the American Academy of Pediatrics (the similarity of the ACP's name to theirs is a complete coincidence, I'm sure ::)), acknowledge that gender dysphoria is a real thing and encourage it to be treated.