Feminism - a skeptical approach

Double wank and shit chips
Dick Strawkins
.
.
Posts: 5859
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 4:34 pm

Feminism - a skeptical approach

#1

Post by Dick Strawkins »

OK, I'm going to try a little experiment here.
The objective here is to try to create a 'safe-space' to discuss feminism.
We all know that raising questions on this topic on popular atheist or skeptical sites does little more than incite a lot of heat and not a few insults or accusations of misogyny.
This is a shame for the simple reason that IF feminism is out of limits to skepticism, then the entire technique of skepticism can be called into question because nothing should be given special treatment.
I am not even coming at this from an anti-feminist angle.
I am not an MRA.
I am not anti-feminist.

The limited understanding of feminism that I have allows me to see that there are various strands of feminism.
And some of these are pretty close to the sort of equality driven humanist values that I personally hold.
Because of this I feel it is wrong to automatically assume to know a persons viewpoint on equality simply because they label themselves 'feminist'.
As an example I would ask people to read the following short blog post by Bridget Gaudette on the blog, 'Emily has books':
http://www.emilyhasbooks.com/label-reads-disposable/
The post describes how Gaudette, an independent thinker and fine writer who has been labelled a 'chill girl' for not toeing the 'correct' line, is disowned by a fellow atheist, simply for describing herself a feminist.
This strikes me as unfair.
A week or so ago the slymepit had a poll about feminism that used PZ Myers definition of feminism (plagiarized from Rebecca West):
"Feminism is the radical notion that women are people."
Virtually everyone who answered the poll agreed with the idea that "women are people".
So?
Does this mean that the Slymepit is a site full of feminists*?
(*=PZ Myers defined)

My own opinion is that the slymepit is indeed full of individuals who think women are people.
In fact a sizeable portion of the regulars here ARE women from a variety of different nationalities and ethnic backgrounds.

What I would say is that certain forms of feminism are opposed by the majority of the slymepit - in particular the political radical feminism that is epitomised by the likes of the trans-hating radfemhub: http://radicalhub.com/radfem-101/

What I would like to do here is create a discussion whereby people - and hopefully this will include lurkers who are not registered slymepitters - can contribute knowledge about feminism.
You do not need to register to post on this site as a guest (and please understand that you can post anonymously if you feel it would be personally dangerous for you to make your RL identity known here)
Even if you hate the slymepit, treat it as an opportunity to convert one or two of us.

I want to know if there is something I am not getting.
Is there a type of feminism, distinct from basic humanism, that will survive the skeptical process?
Is the equity feminism-gender feminism dichotomy a real one? or is that division mainly an assumed one from the point of view of MRA anti-feminist groups?

My major question is the following:
Can skepticism be used to resolve the major question dividing feminism - the question of which is the correct feminism - 'sex-positive'; or (to use the preferred term) 'anti-pornography' feminism.
To me it seems that skepticism will never resolve this question because each position is based on different values.
Sex-positive feminism is based on the idea that people have control over the use of their own bodies, and the value of allowing this independent control supercedes the negative aspects - such as the fact that allowing sex work can result in a proportion of people being involved through coercion.
Anti-porn/sex-work feminists take the view that this cost is too high.
It is essentially a "Schrödingers sex traffic victim" argument. A customer can never be sure that the sex worker is not being coerced, therefore he/she must assume that the sex worker could be a coerced sex traffic victim and therefore prostitution should be illegal to prevent this (this is the basis of the 'Swedish Model' - the system in Sweden where paying for prostitution is illegal.) The same basic principle applies to other sex work such as pornography although the calls for making pornography illegal seem to have less public support.

OK tldr
Summary:
Can skepticism be applied to the various forms of feminist thought (gender, equity, sex-positive, anti-porn, separatist) to allow us to discard those forms that do not stand up to skeptical scrutiny and in so doing reveal a form of feminism that is independent of basic humanism.

sKepptiksowat
.
.
Posts: 77
Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 11:50 am
Contact:

Re: Feminism - a skeptical approach

#2

Post by sKepptiksowat »

Dick Strawkins wrote: Can skepticism be applied to the various forms of feminist thought (gender, equity, sex-positive, anti-porn, separatist) to allow us to discard those forms that do not stand up to skeptical scrutiny and in so doing reveal a form of feminism that is independent of basic humanism.
Yes?

free thoughtpolice
.
.
Posts: 11165
Joined: Wed Oct 24, 2012 4:27 pm

Re: Feminism - a skeptical approach

#3

Post by free thoughtpolice »

To answer the same question. yes but all too frequently it is not.
I wonder how much scientific scrutiny is given to the materials taught in gender, womens studies and if that might account for the amount of cowshit that is plaguing modern feminism.

sKepptiksowat
.
.
Posts: 77
Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 11:50 am
Contact:

Re: Feminism - a skeptical approach

#4

Post by sKepptiksowat »

free thoughtpolice wrote: I wonder how much scientific scrutiny is given to the materials taught in gender, womens studies and if that might account for the amount of cowshit that is plaguing modern feminism.
2%?

free thoughtpolice
.
.
Posts: 11165
Joined: Wed Oct 24, 2012 4:27 pm

Re: Feminism - a skeptical approach

#5

Post by free thoughtpolice »

Years ago my wife took a course sponsored by unemployment insurance that was supposed to get women to start their own business.
It mostly dealt with color therapy and new age self involvement hogwash with near zero content on business planning or accounting.
It's tragic that resources earmarked for education get wasted.
The useful content was more than 2%, but way less than 10%, a waste of time and resources.

Notung
.
.
Posts: 644
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 2:49 am

Re: Feminism - a skeptical approach

#6

Post by Notung »

Good idea for a thread. I'm a feminist I guess, but if someone asks me 'are you a feminist' I'll have to ask 'what do you mean by 'feminist'?' as the concept can mean different things to different people. I'm not an activist, so I'm not a feminist in that sense, and I don't like the way some people throw around words like 'Patriarchy', 'privilege' and commands like 'listen to [only] the women [who agree with me]' seemingly with little thought. However, I do believe in gender equality and I recognise instances of sexism

As for skepticism, I guess that if skepticism is an attitude to doubting claims, to try to investigate all notions with reason and evidence then yes, skepticism should include feminism. If skepticism means 'study it scientifically' then I'm not so sure, since there's an important normative component to feminism.

I think the best approach to feminism is a philosophical one - concentrating on the ethical considerations. It seems those who want feminism to be 'off limits' are doing it a disservice. Often, critical examination can strengthen good ideas. They certainly have nothing to fear from it.

Steersman
.
.
Posts: 10933
Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2012 8:58 pm
Contact:

Re: Feminism - a skeptical approach

#7

Post by Steersman »

Dick Strawkins wrote: I want to know if there is something I am not getting.
Is there a type of feminism, distinct from basic humanism, that will survive the skeptical process?
Is the equity feminism-gender feminism dichotomy a real one? or is that division mainly an assumed one from the point of view of MRA anti-feminist groups?
….
Can skepticism be used to resolve the major question dividing feminism - the question of which is the correct feminism - 'sex-positive'; or (to use the preferred term) 'anti-pornography' feminism.
To me it seems that skepticism will never resolve this question because each position is based on different values. ….
Interesting topic and interesting set of questions. But as I’m not convinced that “the major question dividing feminism” is entailed by the sex-positive versus anti-pornography split, although it is certainly a significant one, since I think it is at least highly dependent on if not a subset of the “equity feminism-gender feminism dichotomy”, I think it is more appropriate to address that latter issue in some detail first. However, as a bit of a precursor and since you broached the subject, it seems appropriate to address several related questions:
Is there a type of feminism, distinct from basic humanism, that will survive the skeptical process?

Is the equity feminism-gender feminism dichotomy a real one?
First of all, to answer the first question with another one, one might first ask, “would we want a type of feminism that will survive the skeptical process?” Is that not tantamount to taking some part of that feminism on faith? In passing, it seems to me that that is part of the problem with gender feminism to begin with in that it seems practically to assert that “gender is entirely a social construct” – and that on virtually no evidence, if not in the face of significant volumes of counter-evidence - such as evolutionary psychology and behavioral genetics - that makes that a very suspect thesis.

However, it seems that one might reasonably argue that humanism is also, to begin with, based on a number of articles of faith – a set of assumptions about personal and social values that we generally “feel” to be ethical and moral. And while I’m not at all qualified to say much about the philosophical underpinnings of that idea, it seems to me that only the most broadly based set of principles – i.e., those based on equality for all humans, without any preconditions – are likely to have any possibility of getting off the ground. In which case, that perspective seems to entail that skepticism should always trump any subsidiary “isms” – in this case, feminism in general, and more particularly gender feminism.

As for the reality of the “equity feminism-gender feminism dichotomy”, while I haven’t yet read it in its entirety, I would quote something again from the Gender chapter in Stephen Pinker’s The Blank Slate:
Pinker wrote:There is, in fact, no incompatibility between the principles of feminism and the possibility that men and women are not psychologically identical. To repeat: equality is not the empirical claim that all groups of humans are interchangeable; it is the moral principle that individuals should not be judged or constrained by the average properties of their group. In the case of gender, the barely defeated Equal Rights Amendment put it succinctly: "Equality of Rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any state on account of sex."
….
Despite these principles, many feminists vehemently attack research on sexuality and sex differences. The politics of gender is a major reason that the application of evolution, genetics, and neuroscience to the human mind is bitterly resisted in modern intellectual life. But unlike other human divisions such as race and ethnicity, where any biological differences are minor at most and scientifically uninteresting, gender cannot possibly be ignored in the science of human beings. [my emphasis]
While I haven’t read enough yet to really corroborate those assertions, it seems that one might reasonably use Pinker’s statements elsewhere in that chapter as pretty strong evidence that that dichotomy is something more than just figments in the fevered imaginations of some “MRA anti-feminist groups”.

Which then brings us around to the sex-positive versus anti-pornography camps within feminism and their competing claims to “dictate” – and I use the word advisedly – individual and social morals. And while one could argue that the sex-positive position is the more credible one since it promotes the concept of agency for women far more than the anti-pornography one does, it also seems that the issue brings in a number of other factors, a primary one being related to the function and roles of sex in general. And as gender feminism seems to have some real influence in hindering a proper understanding of those causal factors without which a workable solution to the problem of prostitution and pornography is unlikely to be found, one might reasonably argue that attempting to understand why gender feminists have an aversion to the idea that “men and women are not psychologically identical” might be a good starting point in solving those aforementioned problems as well as a number of others of possibly larger import.
OK tldr Question Summary:
Can skepticism be applied to the various forms of feminist thought (gender, equity, sex-positive, anti-porn, separatist) to allow us to discard those forms that do not stand up to skeptical scrutiny and in so doing reveal a form of feminism that is independent of basic humanism.
TL;DR Answer Summary:
Certainly think that skepticism can and should be applied, although I don’t see that any “form of feminism” that relies on faith in unproven assumptions – as seems to be the case with gender feminism – can or should survive that scrutiny. And I can’t see that any form feminism that does survive is going to be anything more than, is independent of, that “basic humanism”.

Steersman
.
.
Posts: 10933
Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2012 8:58 pm
Contact:

Re: Feminism - a skeptical approach

#8

Post by Steersman »

free thoughtpolice wrote:To answer the same question. yes but all too frequently it is not.
I wonder how much scientific scrutiny is given to the materials taught in gender, womens studies and if that might account for the amount of cowshit that is plaguing modern feminism.
Somewhat apropos of that question, you might be interested in, if you haven’t run across it yet, a book by several female professors – Daphne Patai and Noretta Koertge – titled Professing Feminism: Education and Indoctrination in Women’s Studies which the Amazon blurb for describes as follows:
Feminists have often called Women's Studies the "academic arm of the women's movement." But Daphne Patai and Noretta Koertge charge that the attempt to make Women's Studies serve a political agenda has led to deeply problematic results: dubious scholarship, pedagogical practices that resemble indoctrination more than education, and the alienation of countless potential supporters.

In this new and expanded edition of their controversial 1994 book, the authors update their analysis of what's gone wrong with Women's Studies programs. Original chapters feature interviews with professors, students, and staffers who invested much time and effort in Women's Studies, and new chapters look primarily at documents recently generated from within Women's Studies itself. Through critiques of actual program mission statements, course descriptions, newsletters, and e-mail lists devoted to feminist pedagogy and Women's Studies, and, not least, the writings of well-known feminist scholars, Patai and Koertge provide a detailed and devastating examination of the routine practices found in feminist teaching and research.

Guest

Re: Feminism - a skeptical approach

#9

Post by Guest »

Dick Strawkins wrote:As an example I would ask people to read the following short blog post by Bridget Gaudette on the blog, 'Emily has books':
http://www.emilyhasbooks.com/label-reads-disposable/
The post describes how Gaudette, an independent thinker and fine writer who has been labelled a 'chill girl' for not toeing the 'correct' line, is disowned by a fellow atheist, simply for describing herself a feminist.
This strikes me as unfair.
Not to mention very stupid. I have to admit that when someone describes themself as a 'feminist' I generally think 'gender feminist', but I actually bother to check the content of what they've posted. If I were to take that line of 'reasoning', I'd have disowned Harriet Hall for no other reason than sharing the same label as PZ Myers and Ophelia Benson.

I think part of the problem with the word 'feminist' is that it's vague: whether you're looking for gender equality, you want women to get special treatment or you have a pro-female agenda of any kind, you can call yourself a feminist. It's vulnerable to being co-opted or tainted by association by those who don't share your views, and I think in that respect it shares the same problem as the word 'socialist': it can range from Stalinism to Leninism to anarcho-syndicalism to more mainstream social democracy (at least in a European context).

With a more specific term like 'egalitarian', you'll inevitably get disagreements among those who share that label, but it's very difficult for someone who doesn't believe in equality to shoehorn their ideology into it; although humans have an extraordinary capacity for rationalizing contradictory beliefs, they'll have a more difficult time with a term that isn't easy to redefine.

Altair
.
.
Posts: 800
Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2012 6:44 am

Re: Feminism - a skeptical approach

#10

Post by Altair »

Dick Strawkins wrote: I am not even coming at this from an anti-feminist angle.
I am not an MRA.
I am not anti-feminist.
I'm still not sure how to label myself. So far I think I would call myself an egalitarian with MRA leanings. I would say I'm anti-radfeminism, understanding radical feminism as the feminist schools, ideologies or people who actively try to harm, oppress or deny rights to men (think Femitheist or RadFemHub).
I do think that feminism, although needed at some point of human history, has fallen short of its promises of equality and by only caring about female rights is unable to fix the problems that plague our society.

Dick Strawkins wrote: The limited understanding of feminism that I have allows me to see that there are various strands of feminism.
And some of these are pretty close to the sort of equality driven humanist values that I personally hold.
Could you expand on this point? Which of the strands do you think are close to humanist values? The one I see being the closest would be what's called equity feminism, but even that strand campaigns and fights for women's rights, while mostly ignoring men's rights, which I would not call humanist.
Dick Strawkins wrote: Because of this I feel it is wrong to automatically assume to know a persons viewpoint on equality simply because they label themselves 'feminist'.
As an example I would ask people to read the following short blog post by Bridget Gaudette on the blog, 'Emily has books':
http://www.emilyhasbooks.com/label-reads-disposable/
The post describes how Gaudette, an independent thinker and fine writer who has been labelled a 'chill girl' for not toeing the 'correct' line, is disowned by a fellow atheist, simply for describing herself a feminist.
This strikes me as unfair.
Feminism has a track record of turning into a nebulous, impossible to define ideology when questioned, and feminists like to define what feminism is FOR them, so, as you say, it's very difficult to pinpoint what a feminist thinks. I would say that the most you can say about someone who defines themselves as a feminist instead of a humanist or egalitarian is that they're only interested on inequalities that affect women, and/or they are not aware of any inequalities that affect men.
Whether that's enough reason to "disown" a person is up to the other person. It wouldn't be enough for me, but it would tell me that this person is not as interested in "equality" as they claim.
Dick Strawkins wrote: A week or so ago the slymepit had a poll about feminism that used PZ Myers definition of feminism (plagiarized from Rebecca West):
"Feminism is the radical notion that women are people."
Virtually everyone who answered the poll agreed with the idea that "women are people".
So?
Does this mean that the Slymepit is a site full of feminists*?
(*=PZ Myers defined)
According to PZ's definition? yes. I think there are very few men in the world who would not agree with women's personhood.
Dick Strawkins wrote: I want to know if there is something I am not getting.
Is there a type of feminism, distinct from basic humanism, that will survive the skeptical process?
Is the equity feminism-gender feminism dichotomy a real one? or is that division mainly an assumed one from the point of view of MRA anti-feminist groups?
The gender-equity dichotomy seems to have originated with Christina Hoff Sommers. So I don't think it would be accurate to say that division is assumed by "MRA anti-feminist groups".
I believe the dichotomy exists, although I would call them radicals and moderates, since I don't see even the moderate feminists as interested in equality, only in equality for their preferred group.
Dick Strawkins wrote: My major question is the following:
Can skepticism be used to resolve the major question dividing feminism - the question of which is the correct feminism - 'sex-positive'; or (to use the preferred term) 'anti-pornography' feminism.
To me it seems that skepticism will never resolve this question because each position is based on different values.
Sex-positive feminism is based on the idea that people have control over the use of their own bodies, and the value of allowing this independent control supercedes the negative aspects - such as the fact that allowing sex work can result in a proportion of people being involved through coercion.
Anti-porn/sex-work feminists take the view that this cost is too high.
Agreed. This distinction seems to be rather subjective and therefore is hard to apply skepticism to it. I think there are several claims made by feminists that can be analyzed with skepticism. For example, did you see the rape infography that was making rounds lately? the one that claimed that the number of rapes that were not reported was huge, while the number of false accusations was very small? The reaction to that was a very thorough analysis of their statistics, which eventually revealed that they had been disingenuous when creating their chart.

Other claims that could be analyzed skeptically would be the existence of patriarchy, the wage gap, and rape culture.
Dick Strawkins wrote: Can skepticism be applied to the various forms of feminist thought (gender, equity, sex-positive, anti-porn, separatist) to allow us to discard those forms that do not stand up to skeptical scrutiny and in so doing reveal a form of feminism that is independent of basic humanism.
If by "applying skepticism to the various forms of feminist thought" you mean applying skepticism to their claims, yes, I believe it can be applied, and even SHOULD be applied.
Will this reveal a form of feminism that is independent of basic humanism? In my opinion, no. Feminism by definition is incompatible with humanism. For the record, so is the MRM. Humanism should encompass both genders, and so far I am not aware of any humanist movement that's tackling the issues that both feminism and the MRM are interested on.

Stretchycheese
.
.
Posts: 181
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 6:22 am

Re: Feminism - a skeptical approach

#11

Post by Stretchycheese »

I've mused about some of these topics in a few previous posts. I'll repost a few:

Regarding gender vs. equity feminism, while it's not a perfect representation (I think it's more like a multidimensional spectrum), I think it's a roughly fair approximation, based on seeing the FtB/skepchick crowd's rhetoric and their critics' responses. You see patterns that are indicative. For instance, the FTB/Skepchick crowd likes to use postmodernist rhetoric and discourse ("privilege", kafkatrapping) while we do not. They're committed to the belief that gender behaviour and aptitudes are entirely a social construct, while we're more open to the possibility of biological influences and stuff like evolutionary pyschology. They appear to be strongly committed ideologically to gender identity politics, while many of us don't have much truck with identity politics or at least hold other identities more important.

In addition, many of them seem to have a dogmatic "gender-centric" outlook on social issues, where they tend to see the world in terms of male/female relations to the exclusion of other factors and nuances (i.e. gender coloured goggles). There's a good 2005 Swedish documentary called "Gender War" that documents this sort thing on radical feminism in Swedish politics. In Norway, Canada, and other countries, they found that mental illness was a major factor in domestic violence issues and programs providing therapy to men successfully reduced domestic violence incidents. Swedish policymakers wanted to bring similar programs, but Swedish radfems in powerful positions vehemently opposed this, insisting that domestic violence was only about "gender power". The radfems eventually got their way.

Although they deny it, I see a lot of parallels with the FTB/Skepchick rhetoric and what Steven Pinker criticized in the "Blank Slate" regarding radical feminism. That is, the focus on power being the main motivator for human behaviour, that gender is socially constructed, and the focus on groups to the exclusion of agency or individuals.

As for the term "feminism", I no longer identify with it. I agree with others here that term has been tainted by dogmatic ideologies. I prefer "egalitarian" as it is more humanistic. If men and women are different in particular behavioural or cognitive ways, then I don't think that's a problem. You can believe that men and women are different but believe in equality as well.

Dick Strawkins
.
.
Posts: 5859
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 4:34 pm

Re: Feminism - a skeptical approach

#12

Post by Dick Strawkins »

Altair wrote:
Dick Strawkins wrote: I am not even coming at this from an anti-feminist angle.
I am not an MRA.
I am not anti-feminist.
I'm still not sure how to label myself. So far I think I would call myself an egalitarian with MRA leanings. I would say I'm anti-radfeminism, understanding radical feminism as the feminist schools, ideologies or people who actively try to harm, oppress or deny rights to men (think Femitheist or RadFemHub).
I do think that feminism, although needed at some point of human history, has fallen short of its promises of equality and by only caring about female rights is unable to fix the problems that plague our society.

Dick Strawkins wrote: The limited understanding of feminism that I have allows me to see that there are various strands of feminism.
And some of these are pretty close to the sort of equality driven humanist values that I personally hold.
Could you expand on this point? Which of the strands do you think are close to humanist values? The one I see being the closest would be what's called equity feminism, but even that strand campaigns and fights for women's rights, while mostly ignoring men's rights, which I would not call humanist.
Certainly what is generally termed 'egalitarian' or 'equity' feminism is close to humanist values.
I'd also say the general liberal claim 'I'm a feminist' often comes from individuals who think 'feminism' just means opposing discrimination, rather than believing in a strong ideology based on patriarchy theory.

Altair
.
.
Posts: 800
Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2012 6:44 am

Re: Feminism - a skeptical approach

#13

Post by Altair »

Dick Strawkins wrote: Certainly what is generally termed 'egalitarian' or 'equity' feminism is close to humanist values.
I'd also say the general liberal claim 'I'm a feminist' often comes from individuals who think 'feminism' just means opposing discrimination, rather than believing in a strong ideology based on patriarchy theory.
I would say it's closeR to humanist values, but in my opinion, a movement that seeks to get equal rights for one of the two genders is not compatible with humanism. Humanism should be concerned with the rights of every human, without regard for gender, race or any other distinction.

I agree with the second part, which is why saying "I'm a feminist" has become almost meaningless since anyone defines feminism according to their understanding and beliefs.

I think the term egalitarianism or equalism would be a very good replacement to both feminism and the MRM, but I also think getting there is going to be tricky. Right now, the MRM is needed to balance feminism, but it will be just as easy to go overboard, become a movement that again focuses solely on one gender and never reaching the humanist goal.

Altair
.
.
Posts: 800
Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2012 6:44 am

Re: Feminism - a skeptical approach

#14

Post by Altair »

Dick, I think you wanted the thread to focus more on skepticism applied to feminism, so please let me know if you think I'm derailing the thread by talking about definitions and humanism.

On that topic, have you read this article by Christina Hoff Sommers? It's about the wage gap, which is one of the big points of feminists. I think she's doing a skeptical analysis of that claim, what do you think?
The AAUW [(American Association of University Women] researchers looked at male and female college graduates one year after graduation. After controlling for several relevant factors (though some were left out, as we shall see), they found that the wage gap narrowed to only 6.6 cents. How much of that is attributable to discrimination? As AAUW spokesperson Lisa Maatz candidly said in an NPR interview, "We are still trying to figure that out."

Metalogic42
.
.
Posts: 1252
Joined: Mon Dec 03, 2012 10:56 am

Re: Feminism - a skeptical approach

#15

Post by Metalogic42 »

Altair wrote:The gender-equity dichotomy seems to have originated with Christina Hoff Sommers. So I don't think it would be accurate to say that division is assumed by "MRA anti-feminist groups".
I believe the dichotomy exists, although I would call them radicals and moderates, since I don't see even the moderate feminists as interested in equality, only in equality for their preferred group.
It's not just not assumed, some of them outright reject it. Here's a quote from a comment at AVFM:
JGteMolder wrote:No; there’s no difference between “radical” feminism and “equity” feminism. Equity feminism is merely the shield the radical feminism uses for plausible deniability reasons. “Radical” feminism are actually the people in control of the feminist movement, they are also in positions of power all across the world working on anti-male legislation.
I'm not sure if this is representative of the general leanings of the MRM, so take this with a grain of salt.
Other claims that could be analyzed skeptically would be the existence of patriarchy, the wage gap, and rape culture.
As I mentioned on Skepchick back in December, it's fairly obvious that we live in an anti-rape culture and that society abhors rape, at least in the first world.
Stretchycheese wrote:As for the term "feminism", I no longer identify with it. I agree with others here that term has been tainted by dogmatic ideologies. I prefer "egalitarian" as it is more humanistic. If men and women are different in particular behavioural or cognitive ways, then I don't think that's a problem. You can believe that men and women are different but believe in equality as well.
I agree as well. On a quick side note, I sort of feel the same way about "atheism". Nowadays I just call myself a non-theist humanist, or secular humanist.

incognito
.
.
Posts: 124
Joined: Tue Jan 29, 2013 9:47 pm

Re: Feminism - a skeptical approach

#16

Post by incognito »

Hey folks. New here. :)

I consider myself a feminist but find a lot of evo psych to be pretty good science, and think we might be a primarily patriarchal species by nature, in the sense that bonobos are primarily matriarchal. I also think gender has a lot of cultural influences that then feed back into the culture, and we can create a more egalitarian society if we choose to (and I think we are doing that and should continue.)

A lot of feminism is woo, but it doesn't have to be that way. It's also a values issue in a lot of ways that are probably outside the realm of science and should be acknowledged as such.

another lurker
.
.
Posts: 4740
Joined: Mon Dec 31, 2012 6:39 pm

Re: Feminism - a skeptical approach

#17

Post by another lurker »

incognito wrote:Hey folks. New here. :)

I consider myself a feminist but find a lot of evo psych to be pretty good science, and think we might be a primarily patriarchal species by nature, in the sense that bonobos are primarily matriarchal. I also think gender has a lot of cultural influences that then feed back into the culture, and we can create a more egalitarian society if we choose to (and I think we are doing that and should continue.)

A lot of feminism is woo, but it doesn't have to be that way. It's also a values issue in a lot of ways that are probably outside the realm of science and should be acknowledged as such.

If we are 'patriarchal' its by environment, not nature, imo. Not to say that men and women are *not* different. Just that those differences, in a modern, technological society, should not elevate one sex over the other.

incognito
.
.
Posts: 124
Joined: Tue Jan 29, 2013 9:47 pm

Re: Feminism - a skeptical approach

#18

Post by incognito »

another lurker wrote:
incognito wrote:Hey folks. New here. :)

I consider myself a feminist but find a lot of evo psych to be pretty good science, and think we might be a primarily patriarchal species by nature, in the sense that bonobos are primarily matriarchal. I also think gender has a lot of cultural influences that then feed back into the culture, and we can create a more egalitarian society if we choose to (and I think we are doing that and should continue.)

A lot of feminism is woo, but it doesn't have to be that way. It's also a values issue in a lot of ways that are probably outside the realm of science and should be acknowledged as such.

If we are 'patriarchal' its by environment, not nature, imo. Not to say that men and women are *not* different. Just that those differences, in a modern, technological society, should not elevate one sex over the other.
Maybe, but funny how the whole male dominated societies thing is very nearly universal among the human species. I'm not sure we're different from the other apes in some of that stuff being an innate tendency.

Dick Strawkins
.
.
Posts: 5859
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 4:34 pm

Re: Feminism - a skeptical approach

#19

Post by Dick Strawkins »

incognito wrote:
another lurker wrote:
incognito wrote:Hey folks. New here. :)

I consider myself a feminist but find a lot of evo psych to be pretty good science, and think we might be a primarily patriarchal species by nature, in the sense that bonobos are primarily matriarchal. I also think gender has a lot of cultural influences that then feed back into the culture, and we can create a more egalitarian society if we choose to (and I think we are doing that and should continue.)

A lot of feminism is woo, but it doesn't have to be that way. It's also a values issue in a lot of ways that are probably outside the realm of science and should be acknowledged as such.

If we are 'patriarchal' its by environment, not nature, imo. Not to say that men and women are *not* different. Just that those differences, in a modern, technological society, should not elevate one sex over the other.
Maybe, but funny how the whole male dominated societies thing is very nearly universal among the human species. I'm not sure we're different from the other apes in some of that stuff being an innate tendency.
There may be purely historical reasons for this in humans. Most societies have evolved from agricultural and tribal beginnings. Physical strength and aggression (ability to fight) are going to favor males in this situation so it is unsurprising that this form of patriarchal society emerged.
Regarding the term "patriarchy" I've come to realize that there are two separate definitions. The anthropological "patriarchy" (which seems to be a widely accepted description of historical societal models, kings etc) and the feminist form, which seems to be rather less well defined,
and refers to almost a kind of conspiracy amongst males to keep uppity women down.

Altair
.
.
Posts: 800
Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2012 6:44 am

Re: Feminism - a skeptical approach

#20

Post by Altair »

Dick Strawkins wrote:
Regarding the term "patriarchy" I've come to realize that there are two separate definitions. The anthropological "patriarchy" (which seems to be a widely accepted description of historical societal models, kings etc) and the feminist form, which seems to be rather less well defined,
and refers to almost a kind of conspiracy amongst males to keep uppity women down.
That's not the only definition I've seen, here's another from the A+ forums which is even less well defined. Although I think the "conspiracy" definition is the most common one.
Sylvia Sybil wrote: Patriarchy, to me, implies a structure. A "natural", reflexive way of doing things. A sixteen-year-old boy doesn't need to stop and think, "Mwa ha ha, catcalling my classmate will inspire fear and remind her that she lives under constant threat of sexual assault". That's the beauty* of it: it has that effect whether he knows it or not. In fact, one of the most frustrating forms of domination I deal with is the ability to just not think about the person. To stomp around in complete and blissful ignorance of all the toes one's smashing. Selfishness so pure one doesn't know there's anything outside the self to be concerned about.

Altair
.
.
Posts: 800
Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2012 6:44 am

Re: Feminism - a skeptical approach

#21

Post by Altair »

incognito wrote:Hey folks. New here. :)

I consider myself a feminist but find a lot of evo psych to be pretty good science, and think we might be a primarily patriarchal species by nature, in the sense that bonobos are primarily matriarchal. I also think gender has a lot of cultural influences that then feed back into the culture, and we can create a more egalitarian society if we choose to (and I think we are doing that and should continue.)

A lot of feminism is woo, but it doesn't have to be that way. It's also a values issue in a lot of ways that are probably outside the realm of science and should be acknowledged as such.
Hi, Incognito. I didn't have the opportunity to welcome you in the main thread, so welcome!

If you don't mind my asking, why do you consider yourself a feminist instead of a humanist or an egalitarian?

Also, I'm not sure what you mean by
It's also a values issue in a lot of ways that are probably outside the realm of science and should be acknowledged as such
Can you expand on this issue, please?

another lurker
.
.
Posts: 4740
Joined: Mon Dec 31, 2012 6:39 pm

Re: Feminism - a skeptical approach

#22

Post by another lurker »

Altair wrote:
Dick Strawkins wrote:
Regarding the term "patriarchy" I've come to realize that there are two separate definitions. The anthropological "patriarchy" (which seems to be a widely accepted description of historical societal models, kings etc) and the feminist form, which seems to be rather less well defined,
and refers to almost a kind of conspiracy amongst males to keep uppity women down.
That's not the only definition I've seen, here's another from the A+ forums which is even less well defined. Although I think the "conspiracy" definition is the most common one.
Sylvia Sybil wrote: Patriarchy, to me, implies a structure. A "natural", reflexive way of doing things. A sixteen-year-old boy doesn't need to stop and think, "Mwa ha ha, catcalling my classmate will inspire fear and remind her that she lives under constant threat of sexual assault". That's the beauty* of it: it has that effect whether he knows it or not. In fact, one of the most frustrating forms of domination I deal with is the ability to just not think about the person. To stomp around in complete and blissful ignorance of all the toes one's smashing. Selfishness so pure one doesn't know there's anything outside the self to be concerned about.
I always took it to mean anthropological patriarchy. Most of my understanding of feminism, and treatment of women, comes from anthropology and the study of history.

When I first visited FTB I was reading everything from the anthro/historical perspective, and I did not immediately realize that these people were into conspiracies of patriarchy.

They start off with basic truths, about how societies are organised, but they take it too far, into batshit crazy territory.

That's how I see it, anyways. Calling someone a 'bitch' is not an example of the eeebil patriarchy at work, for example.

incognito
.
.
Posts: 124
Joined: Tue Jan 29, 2013 9:47 pm

Re: Feminism - a skeptical approach

#23

Post by incognito »

Altair wrote:
incognito wrote:Hey folks. New here. :)

I consider myself a feminist but find a lot of evo psych to be pretty good science, and think we might be a primarily patriarchal species by nature, in the sense that bonobos are primarily matriarchal. I also think gender has a lot of cultural influences that then feed back into the culture, and we can create a more egalitarian society if we choose to (and I think we are doing that and should continue.)

A lot of feminism is woo, but it doesn't have to be that way. It's also a values issue in a lot of ways that are probably outside the realm of science and should be acknowledged as such.
Hi, Incognito. I didn't have the opportunity to welcome you in the main thread, so welcome!

If you don't mind my asking, why do you consider yourself a feminist instead of a humanist or an egalitarian?

Also, I'm not sure what you mean by
It's also a values issue in a lot of ways that are probably outside the realm of science and should be acknowledged as such
Can you expand on this issue, please?
It's an issue of values in the sense that it deals with what should be as opposed to what is. Science deals with what is; ethics deals with what should be, and is a matter of values, and can be informed by science, but it's not science itself. A lot of feminism is a matter of values/ethics in that regard.

Regarding feminism vs humanism - I guess I think perfect humanism is a/the human ideal, and feminism is a stepping stone to get (at least close to) there.

16bitheretic
.
.
Posts: 448
Joined: Sat Dec 29, 2012 7:00 pm

Re: Feminism - a skeptical approach

#24

Post by 16bitheretic »

incognito wrote:Hey folks. New here. :)

I consider myself a feminist but find a lot of evo psych to be pretty good science, and think we might be a primarily patriarchal species by nature, in the sense that bonobos are primarily matriarchal. I also think gender has a lot of cultural influences that then feed back into the culture, and we can create a more egalitarian society if we choose to (and I think we are doing that and should continue.)

A lot of feminism is woo, but it doesn't have to be that way. It's also a values issue in a lot of ways that are probably outside the realm of science and should be acknowledged as such.
If all of feminism was in your framework I'd probably still call myself a feminist. I just find that I can't bother to use the label anymore because of the woo, as you mentioned. Is society patriarchal? Well, if they mean patriarchy solely as a descriptor of more men holding power than women then yes, it is. But things like patriarchy theory too often in feminist circles become conspiracy, like a male illuminati intentionally shoving the womenfolk down. I think rape is used too often in gender studies, as is the demonization of male sexuality. I think too many feminists also have a huge level of benevolent sexism, they treat women like fragile little helpless maidens who need the kindhearted male savior to swoop in and protect them from the evil alpha male rape apologists. This is the stuff that caused me to drop the feminist label.

Altair
.
.
Posts: 800
Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2012 6:44 am

Re: Feminism - a skeptical approach

#25

Post by Altair »

Incognito, sorry for the late response, I was madly busy at work the last couple days.
incognito wrote: It's an issue of values in the sense that it deals with what should be as opposed to what is. Science deals with what is; ethics deals with what should be, and is a matter of values, and can be informed by science, but it's not science itself. A lot of feminism is a matter of values/ethics in that regard.
I think if you want to deal it what should be (general you, not Incognito you), you better be ready to present some evidence to show why what you think you should be should be accepted by other people. Otherwise it's just something a person came up with and is trying to sell to other people. That might not be science but should use the scientific method or at least skepticism.
In other words, if feminism, or any other value/ethics system wants me to take them seriously, they better bring evidence to the table stay away from the table.
incognito wrote: Regarding feminism vs humanism - I guess I think perfect humanism is a/the human ideal, and feminism is a stepping stone to get (at least close to) there.
I disagree with that. I see feminism has taking us away from humanism. It created and ideology and theory that actually considers one gender as the enemy of the other, gives special privileges to people based on their gender and wants equality for a select few.
That's not humanism. Not even close.

windy
.
.
Posts: 2140
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 12:41 am
Location: Tom of Finland-land

Re: Feminism - a skeptical approach

#26

Post by windy »

Here's a response to the gender/equity feminism division from a feminist blogger:
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/lovejoyfem ... ology.html

I quite like her posts as a representative for the feminist point of view even if I disagree with her conclusions- from what I've read, she tends to respond to issues, not ad hominem the person raising them. The same can't be said for most of her commenters, though.

(A funny thing happens in the comments - there are several people scoffing at evolutionary psychology and the idea of evolved sex differences. Then someone positively mentions the grandmother theory (that menopause evolved to extend female post-reproductive lifespan) and that passes by without any comment! I guess some evolved sex differences are more equal than others...)

Altair
.
.
Posts: 800
Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2012 6:44 am

Re: Feminism - a skeptical approach

#27

Post by Altair »

windy wrote:Here's a response to the gender/equity feminism division from a feminist blogger:
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/lovejoyfem ... ology.html

I quite like her posts as a representative for the feminist point of view even if I disagree with her conclusions- from what I've read, she tends to respond to issues, not ad hominem the person raising them. The same can't be said for most of her commenters, though.

(A funny thing happens in the comments - there are several people scoffing at evolutionary psychology and the idea of evolved sex differences. Then someone positively mentions the grandmother theory (that menopause evolved to extend female post-reproductive lifespan) and that passes by without any comment! I guess some evolved sex differences are more equal than others...)
Her writing style is good, and she uses citations and links to support her statements. I disagree with her conclusions as well, but I think she does seem like someone interested in debate and in finding out which ideas are right using discussion and skepticism.

I found this quote aligns with my views, but I'm not sure if she agrees or disagrees with it. If there is equality of opportunity, there is nothing stopping women from being in STEM fields, or from not doing the majority of childcare. Putting them in leadership positions would give them a special privilege and I'm against that.
It’s hard to tell when going of fairly short statements made in blog posts or comments, but the idea seems to be that if you ensure that there is equality before the law, it shouldn’t matter that men dominate in STEM fields and in leadership positions, or that that women find themselves doing the majority of the childcare. We shouldn’t bat an eye or ask why – instead, we should just accept this situation as natural and inevitable because men and women are different.
I haven't read the whole article yet, but I'll put her in my reading list. Thanks for the link, Windy.

incognito
.
.
Posts: 124
Joined: Tue Jan 29, 2013 9:47 pm

Re: Feminism - a skeptical approach

#28

Post by incognito »

Altair wrote:Incognito, sorry for the late response, I was madly busy at work the last couple days.
incognito wrote: It's an issue of values in the sense that it deals with what should be as opposed to what is. Science deals with what is; ethics deals with what should be, and is a matter of values, and can be informed by science, but it's not science itself. A lot of feminism is a matter of values/ethics in that regard.
I think if you want to deal it what should be (general you, not Incognito you), you better be ready to present some evidence to show why what you think you should be should be accepted by other people. Otherwise it's just something a person came up with and is trying to sell to other people. That might not be science but should use the scientific method or at least skepticism.
In other words, if feminism, or any other value/ethics system wants me to take them seriously, they better bring evidence to the table stay away from the table.
incognito wrote: Regarding feminism vs humanism - I guess I think perfect humanism is a/the human ideal, and feminism is a stepping stone to get (at least close to) there.
I disagree with that. I see feminism has taking us away from humanism. It created and ideology and theory that actually considers one gender as the enemy of the other, gives special privileges to people based on their gender and wants equality for a select few.
That's not humanism. Not even close.
1) Can you scientifically prove that genocide is wrong?
2) You and I are working with different definitions of feminism there. There are skeptic feminists, but they're not going to be found in the feminist-only circles.

Richard Dworkins
.
.
Posts: 864
Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 9:31 am

Re: Feminism - a skeptical approach

#29

Post by Richard Dworkins »

Personally? I don't think you need to apply skepticism to feminism because it is has been for at least the last 20 years or so little more than a self sustaining nebulous whine exacerbated by an insular cell of pseudo-academics who pretend it has to do with civil rights to keep their witch doctor sophistries from being laughed out of education. The word has become a catch all term by which androphobes can deny their neuroses by joining a revisionist conspiracy theory.

Dick Strawkins
.
.
Posts: 5859
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 4:34 pm

Re: Feminism - a skeptical approach

#30

Post by Dick Strawkins »

windy wrote:Here's a response to the gender/equity feminism division from a feminist blogger:
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/lovejoyfem ... ology.html

I quite like her posts as a representative for the feminist point of view even if I disagree with her conclusions- from what I've read, she tends to respond to issues, not ad hominem the person raising them. The same can't be said for most of her commenters, though.

(A funny thing happens in the comments - there are several people scoffing at evolutionary psychology and the idea of evolved sex differences. Then someone positively mentions the grandmother theory (that menopause evolved to extend female post-reproductive lifespan) and that passes by without any comment! I guess some evolved sex differences are more equal than others...)
Thanks for the link, windy.
It confirms something I suspected, namely that the terms 'gender' and 'equity' are not used by mainstream feminists to describe major differences between branches of feminism.
The rest of her article made it plain that she, personally, was clearly a follower of the academic style feminism - rather than the old 'women are people' catchphrase.

Altair
.
.
Posts: 800
Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2012 6:44 am

Re: Feminism - a skeptical approach

#31

Post by Altair »

incognito wrote: 1) Can you scientifically prove that genocide is wrong?
2) You and I are working with different definitions of feminism there. There are skeptic feminists, but they're not going to be found in the feminist-only circles.
1) Scientifically? Assuming that by scientifically we mean using experiments and laboratories, No. But if I said "genocide is wrong" to someone, I should have some reasons different than "just because". If I failed to give reasons or evidence for that, even in the form of a logical argument, other people would be within their rights not to pay any attention to me.

It could be something like "We know most humans want to live, which can be determined by a poll and the great lengths people will go to save their lives and their loved ones. Genocide implies depriving a large number of people of their lives, which will cause pain to them and their loved ones. Therefore, I say genocide is wrong".

People would be free to agree or disagree, but I presented them a set of reasons they can evaluate. If we lived in a world that had no concept of genocide, and I said "genocide is bad, because I say so", I don't think that would get a lot of traction.

We have several skeptical forums dedicated to analyze and ask for evidence of conspiracy theories. We don't accept it easily when people tell us about a world wide conspiracy of rich families that rule the world, or a New World Order. We should do the same when the statements are about patriarchy.

2) I'm not sure about this point. When you say a "skeptical feminist", do you mean a feminist who is skeptical about feminism, or a feminist who happens to also be a skeptical?

What's your definition of feminism and how does it differ from the one I'm using?

incognito
.
.
Posts: 124
Joined: Tue Jan 29, 2013 9:47 pm

Re: Feminism - a skeptical approach

#32

Post by incognito »

1) How can skepticism determine whether or not it's wrong to cause people pain?
2) I'm a skeptic who is also a feminist.
For me, feminism is about countering misogyny primarily.
This is a pretty good explanation:

http://dispatchesfromtheclaphamomnibus. ... nists.html

windy
.
.
Posts: 2140
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 12:41 am
Location: Tom of Finland-land

Re: Feminism - a skeptical approach

#33

Post by windy »

incognito wrote:1) How can skepticism determine whether or not it's wrong to cause people pain?
2) I'm a skeptic who is also a feminist.
For me, feminism is about countering misogyny primarily.
This is a pretty good explanation:

http://dispatchesfromtheclaphamomnibus. ... nists.html
That looks like an interesting blog, thanks for the tip!

Dick Strawkins
.
.
Posts: 5859
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 4:34 pm

Re: Feminism - a skeptical approach

#34

Post by Dick Strawkins »

windy wrote:
incognito wrote:1) How can skepticism determine whether or not it's wrong to cause people pain?
2) I'm a skeptic who is also a feminist.
For me, feminism is about countering misogyny primarily.
This is a pretty good explanation:

http://dispatchesfromtheclaphamomnibus. ... nists.html
That looks like an interesting blog, thanks for the tip!
Indeed.
It is interesting that the author seems to distance herself from standard academic feminism.
She linked to the following article by describing it as a great paper- it is basically a criticism of the unscientific and unfounded basis of gender feminism, written by an equity feminist.

http://www.epjournal.net/wp-content/upl ... 103943.pdf

Altair
.
.
Posts: 800
Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2012 6:44 am

Re: Feminism - a skeptical approach

#35

Post by Altair »

incognito wrote:1) How can skepticism determine whether or not it's wrong to cause people pain?
2) I'm a skeptic who is also a feminist.
For me, feminism is about countering misogyny primarily.
This is a pretty good explanation:

http://dispatchesfromtheclaphamomnibus. ... nists.html
About 1, skepticism cannot determine whether or not it's wrong, but it can help accept or reject reasons people give about why it's wrong or not. Skepticism is not a tool to find moral truths, but it can help evaluate whether those moral truths hold water or not.

When we tell christians that "Gold said so" is not a good reason to oppose gay marriage, we are applying skepticism to a moral situation. It doesn't tell us whether gay marriage is right or wrong, but it helps determine if a reason is good or not.

bored

Re: Feminism - a skeptical approach

#36

Post by bored »

its the wee hours of the morning and Im bored enough to bite.

"it's fairly obvious that we live in an anti-rape culture and that society abhors rape"

I question this.

I question it because this is not just one culture we live in. It's an ever more gloopy mishmash of elements pulled from all sorts of places. In some of the quaint little southern towns of the US it is decidedly not the case that the culture is *anti* rape. Its not exactly *pro* rape either but the conservative element of the population can easily be classified as trending that way. just look at some of the fucked up shit their chosen representatives say, especially in regards to issues like abortion and gay rights.

One rather disgusting example would be Joe Rehyansky, a Tennessee judge who was quoted as saying “Lesbians should be allowed to serve [because it] would get the distaff part of our homosexual population off our collective ‘Broke Back,’ thus giving straight male GIs a fair shot at converting lesbians and bringing them into the mainstream."
http://viewsacrossthepond.wordpress.com ... -soldiers/

and you might counter that with the fact that the people Im talking about are a select few in public positions...however, not only are there significant numbers attempting to defend them...but these guys are getting it from somewhere right?

and it's not just conservative america that has elements of this trend..

stuff like this: http://www.seattlepi.com/national/artic ... 883744.php

...then there's evidence of this sort of...rape apathy...
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/loca ... 9454.story ...only submitted for testing if there's a suspect? why not have that DNA on file so that if the perp gets busted and DNA pulled for some other crime they can run it through a rape kit database and see if there's any hits? sounds like a nice easy way to catch a rapist if you ask me...[bullshit whining]ohhhh but it costs too much monies![/bullshit whining]...and busting kids for smoking a joint in the park doesn't and is somehow soooo much more important?

so no..its not "fairly obvious". In fact it's kind of questionable. I definately wouldnt say that this is a pro rape culture but there is something going on here thats not right in the head at all.


"Is there a type of feminism, distinct from basic humanism, that will survive the skeptical process?"

possibly. does it really matter? should I just drop the following because you're skeptical about it?

mentors troubled teen girls..therefore...feminist.
helps struggling single moms get back to school to better themselves and their lives.....therefore...feminist.
does rape counseling (incidentally counsels victims of both sexes)...therefore...feminist.
provides safehouse for battered women being pursued by their psycho stalkers....therefore...feminist.
works to help bring education to women in fascist islamic countries...therefore...feminist.
definately wants equal rights for all but finds efforts to be most effective in the sphere of women's issues due to the possession of a vagina and the considerations accompanying it. also can't typically be arsed to argue about the definition of feminism with anyone due to being way too busy helping women to care what people think of motivations or labels. so feel special for the exception to the rule.

"Is the equity feminism-gender feminism dichotomy a real one? "

no. not at all. not even close. I claim the label because it fits my actions. I don't give a shit what associations people assign to it. And Im not the only one who thinks like that.

Dick Strawkins
.
.
Posts: 5859
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 4:34 pm

Re: Feminism - a skeptical approach

#37

Post by Dick Strawkins »

bored wrote:its the wee hours of the morning and Im bored enough to bite.

"it's fairly obvious that we live in an anti-rape culture and that society abhors rape"

I question this.

I question it because this is not just one culture we live in. It's an ever more gloopy mishmash of elements pulled from all sorts of places. In some of the quaint little southern towns of the US it is decidedly not the case that the culture is *anti* rape. Its not exactly *pro* rape either but the conservative element of the population can easily be classified as trending that way. just look at some of the fucked up shit their chosen representatives say, especially in regards to issues like abortion and gay rights.

One rather disgusting example would be Joe Rehyansky, a Tennessee judge who was quoted as saying “Lesbians should be allowed to serve [because it] would get the distaff part of our homosexual population off our collective ‘Broke Back,’ thus giving straight male GIs a fair shot at converting lesbians and bringing them into the mainstream."
http://viewsacrossthepond.wordpress.com ... -soldiers/

and you might counter that with the fact that the people Im talking about are a select few in public positions...however, not only are there significant numbers attempting to defend them...but these guys are getting it from somewhere right?

and it's not just conservative america that has elements of this trend..

stuff like this: http://www.seattlepi.com/national/artic ... 883744.php

...then there's evidence of this sort of...rape apathy...
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/loca ... 9454.story ...only submitted for testing if there's a suspect? why not have that DNA on file so that if the perp gets busted and DNA pulled for some other crime they can run it through a rape kit database and see if there's any hits? sounds like a nice easy way to catch a rapist if you ask me...[bullshit whining]ohhhh but it costs too much monies![/bullshit whining]...and busting kids for smoking a joint in the park doesn't and is somehow soooo much more important?

so no..its not "fairly obvious". In fact it's kind of questionable. I definately wouldnt say that this is a pro rape culture but there is something going on here thats not right in the head at all.


"Is there a type of feminism, distinct from basic humanism, that will survive the skeptical process?"

possibly. does it really matter? should I just drop the following because you're skeptical about it?

mentors troubled teen girls..therefore...feminist.
helps struggling single moms get back to school to better themselves and their lives.....therefore...feminist.
does rape counseling (incidentally counsels victims of both sexes)...therefore...feminist.
provides safehouse for battered women being pursued by their psycho stalkers....therefore...feminist.
works to help bring education to women in fascist islamic countries...therefore...feminist.
definately wants equal rights for all but finds efforts to be most effective in the sphere of women's issues due to the possession of a vagina and the considerations accompanying it. also can't typically be arsed to argue about the definition of feminism with anyone due to being way too busy helping women to care what people think of motivations or labels. so feel special for the exception to the rule.

"Is the equity feminism-gender feminism dichotomy a real one? "

no. not at all. not even close. I claim the label because it fits my actions. I don't give a shit what associations people assign to it. And Im not the only one who thinks like that.


You claim the label 'feminist' for your actions. Fine. No problem.
But you are no doubt aware that others perform the same actions but use a different title for their inspiration.
For example all of the examples you have given are also things done by religious charities (community nuns for example.)
They call themselves Christian, or Catholic.
Perhaps some also call themselves feminist.
And then there are other people doing the same things who are neither religious nor describe themselves as feminists.

It would appear to me that the acts themselves are the important thing rather than the title you choose to use for your ideology.
If I, or someone else, say that I might disagree with the ideas of some particular branch of feminism (say the separatists) then it should have no bearing on whether you should carry out the activities you have listed.
As I mentioned in the initial post I am a feminist according to PZ Myers (since I believe in "the radical notion that women are people"), so take this as a discussion between two feminists.
And even if I did not choose to call myself a feminist, I think there is a huge chasm of logical inference missing between not calling oneself a feminist, and stating you should stop carrying out the activities you listed.

As for the idea of rape culture, I'm afraid I wasn't so convinced by your examples. One example of schoolyard deliquency that was widely condemned and reported as a shocking occurence around the world - it's hardly a sign of it being condoned, is it?
The old right wing idiot didn't actually call for South African style 'corrective rape', at least not in the version of his (stupid and bigoted) op-ed piece that I read. I took it to mean he was suggesting something profoundly idiotic like 'if you allow lesbians to serve in the military then the presence of hunky male beefcake is going to make them realize their error and switch to heterosexuality'.
As for the lack of DNA testing on rape kit samples, that sounded bad to me but not in the sense that you seem to see it. I took it as being a sad indictment of the thoroughness of prosecution efforts. Do you seriously think that rape kits are the only piece of forensic evidence that is not followed up in this way? DNA testing is expensive and it seems that there was a policy in place to only perform testing if there was a suspect in the frame. To me this sounds idiotic. DNA fingerprinting will allow you to make connections with previous crimes. There is a very good reason for doing the testing. But I would hazard that this is a cost issue (rather than rape friendly issue). They are looking for a way to cut down the instances of paying for DNA testing and this is one such area - and probably not the only one.

As for 'rape culture' being accepted in western society (and I would tend to accept that there is some acceptance of it in highly religious third world settings - 'if a girl goes out on a date with her boyfriend then she is asking for rape') I think there is one particular situation where rape is not only accepted, but looked on approvingly by the population at large.
That is in the context of male prisons.
"Don't drop the soap!" and "say hello to your new cellmate Bubba", are euphymisms for prison rape - something that is regarded as both a punishment for crime, and a deterrent to be held up in front of young men to force them to think twice before committing a crime.

As for your point regarding
"Is there a type of feminism, distinct from basic humanism, that will survive the skeptical process?"

possibly. does it really matter? should I just drop the following because you're skeptical about it?
As I said nobody is asking you to stop any activity.
The question is whether there is a skeptical basis for feminism.
We are told there is by PZ Myers and Aplus.

Many of us tend to disagree and see it as being more a value judgement - something that is not amenable to skepticism.
For example it may be akin to humanism. There is no way to arrive a humanism through skepticism. It is a somewhat arbitrary drawing of the line at the level of our fellow humans. But once we do that and accept that the line is correctly drawn at this position we can use this to inform our world view (for example it allows us to - hopefully - avoid racism, sexism and discrimination against our fellow humans)
Likewise you may not be able to 'prove' feminism the same way you would prove evolution. But you may be able to use it as a value judgement which allows you to prioritise your behavior. But if it is a value judgement then it is not something that another skeptic may necessarily agree with (compared to, for example things like evolution, opposition to alternative medicine etc) that can be reached through application of skeptical thinking.

still bored.

Re: Feminism - a skeptical approach

#38

Post by still bored. »

"You claim the label 'feminist' for your actions. Fine. No problem.
But you are no doubt aware that others perform the same actions but use a different title for their inspiration.
For example all of the examples you have given are also things done by religious charities (community nuns for example.)
They call themselves Christian, or Catholic.
Perhaps some also call themselves feminist.
And then there are other people doing the same things who are neither religious nor describe themselves as feminists."

so what if there are Christians who call themselves feminists. As a matter a fact I work with a few religious charities that include self identified feminists. Why does that matter in the slightest? they're decent people. I don't agree with their theology but that's irrelevant to my goals.

"It would appear to me that the acts themselves are the important thing rather than the title you choose to use for your ideology."

yep. so why should it matter to anyone what label I choose to slap on it? I think the shoe fits...therefore, Ill happily wear it.

"If I, or someone else, say that I might disagree with the ideas of some particular branch of feminism (say the separatists) then it should have no bearing on whether you should carry out the activities you have listed."

It doesnt. not in the slightest. nor does it have any bearing on the words I use to describe it.

"As for the idea of rape culture, I'm afraid I wasn't so convinced by your examples. One example of schoolyard deliquency that was widely condemned and reported as a shocking occurence around the world - it's hardly a sign of it being condoned, is it?
The old right wing idiot didn't actually call for South African style 'corrective rape', at least not in the version of his (stupid and bigoted) op-ed piece that I read. I took it to mean he was suggesting something profoundly idiotic like 'if you allow lesbians to serve in the military then the presence of hunky male beefcake is going to make them realize their error and switch to heterosexuality'.
As for the lack of DNA testing on rape kit samples, that sounded bad to me but not in the sense that you seem to see it. I took it as being a sad indictment of the thoroughness of prosecution efforts. Do you seriously think that rape kits are the only piece of forensic evidence that is not followed up in this way? DNA testing is expensive and it seems that there was a policy in place to only perform testing if there was a suspect in the frame. To me this sounds idiotic. DNA fingerprinting will allow you to make connections with previous crimes. There is a very good reason for doing the testing. But I would hazard that this is a cost issue (rather than rape friendly issue). They are looking for a way to cut down the instances of paying for DNA testing and this is one such area - and probably not the only one."

Where did I say definitely that there is a rape culture here? the only thing I claim is that there are some fucked up cultural issues surrounding rape that incite me to question the claim that america is vehemently anti rape. I never claimed a definitive answer...just expressed my skepticism on that particular assertion. and there are more examples than just what I linked. The links were to provide an idea of the *type* of things that incite my skepticism in that regard. As far as Im concerned, the jury is still out on the subject.

"
As for 'rape culture' being accepted in western society (and I would tend to accept that there is some acceptance of it in highly religious third world settings - 'if a girl goes out on a date with her boyfriend then she is asking for rape') I think there is one particular situation where rape is not only accepted, but looked on approvingly by the population at large.
That is in the context of male prisons.
"Don't drop the soap!" and "say hello to your new cellmate Bubba", are euphymisms for prison rape - something that is regarded as both a punishment for crime, and a deterrent to be held up in front of young men to force them to think twice before committing a crime."

happens in female prisons too. during my years as a rape crisis counselor, Ive talked to many former prisoners, both male and female who have dealt with the issue of prison rape. From what I gather the real problem in this area is the guards and how they tend to dehumanize prisoners. Out of respect for the confidences of the people Ive talked to, Im not going to give much more detail than that but based on what Ive heard, I lean towards thinking that prison rape tends to be more of an issue with how many people view justice. The "eye for an eye" bullshit is rather very deeply entrenched in the general psyche.

"We are told there is by PZ Myers and Aplus."

and who made them the Gods of Feminism? certainly not me. I came to this forum and the A+ forum out of curiosity. Friend of mine is rather more involved with all that shit than I have been and asked me to take a look because she's involved with the whole "cease fire" thing and is looking to get more opinions from people who have either been on the sidelines observing or who have been largely unaware of the conflict. Frankly Im as not impressed with either of you as she is, but for different reasons. upshot of that is consider me as a sort of second opinion on feminism divorced from your little petty internecine squabbles. I replied to this partially out of boredom and partially out of the fact that this is the first thread Ive seen here so far that has a vague flavor of intellectual rigor to it.

"Many of us tend to disagree and see it as being more a value judgement - something that is not amenable to skepticism."

Im afraid I dont see why you would even care if it is amenable to skepticism or not. You don't like PZ Myers. good for you. Neither do i. anyone who claims to be an academic and who doesn't follow the rules of civil discourse is a twat and not worth anyone's time or stress.

'For example it may be akin to humanism. There is no way to arrive a humanism through skepticism. It is a somewhat arbitrary drawing of the line at the level of our fellow humans. But once we do that and accept that the line is correctly drawn at this position we can use this to inform our world view (for example it allows us to - hopefully - avoid racism, sexism and discrimination against our fellow humans)
Likewise you may not be able to 'prove' feminism the same way you would prove evolution. But you may be able to use it as a value judgement which allows you to prioritise your behavior. But if it is a value judgement then it is not something that another skeptic may necessarily agree with (compared to, for example things like evolution, opposition to alternative medicine etc) that can be reached through application of skeptical thinking."

the preponderance of the idea that one must ascribe oneself to some defined ideology as it is defined baffles me. especially coming from self identified "skeptics". How about "look into Ideology x, assess functionality of different points. retain function points. discard useless ones. move on."

in retrospect, given a full dose of sleep...i may have been mistaken about the flavor of this thread. it got really boring really fast. have fun with your little bickering bunch of self ascribed atheists. Given what Ive seen here and on the A+ forum, I dont really have any further desire to involve myself with any of you. Carry on...

Stretchycheese
.
.
Posts: 181
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 6:22 am

Re: Feminism - a skeptical approach

#39

Post by Stretchycheese »

I'm certain this book has been discussed here before, but it looks like a great read:

"Professing Feminism: Education and Indoctrination in Women's Studies"


It's not in my local library unfortunately, but perhaps I can get it through an interlibrary loan. Based on what I've seen from some reviews, it definitely helps explain some of the dogmatic ideological behaviours, rhetoric, and mindsets we're seeing from the FTB/Skepchick/A+ crowd. Indeed, the stuff the book documents among Women's Studies academia towards their dissenters and critics are often mirrored by the FTB/Skepchick/A+ attitudes.

http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/3406 ... g_Feminism
"Dismayed by what they claim are the dogmatic methods inherent in many women's studies programs, Patai and Koertge, two feminist academics, urgently call for introspection and reform. Recounting the experiences of colleagues who have grown alienated and disenchanted with the movement, the authors convincingly demonstrate that on many campuses feminist scholarship is being subverted by indoctrination, separatism, political agendas, and a militant intolerance for opposing viewpoints. The authors call for a new "humanistic feminism" that promotes the liberal principle of tolerance and inquiry. This study should alert concerned women to the dangers of ideological chauvinism and serve as a guide for the realignment of women's programs. Essential reading for anyone involved in women's studies."
It is sad that so many so many people who claim to be scientific skeptics are still susceptible to ideological indocrination, conformity, and dogmatic behaviours. It appears that many of the dogmas and indoctrination inherent to Woman's Studies programs have had major influence among FTB/Skepchick/A+ supporters. People like that don't dominate the movement, however. Dogmatic conformist ideologies don't sit that well within a movement that values critical thinking, so it's good to see the pushback.

Stretchycheese
.
.
Posts: 181
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 6:22 am

Re: Feminism - a skeptical approach

#40

Post by Stretchycheese »

A few chapters of the book are availabe from a google books extract:

http://books.google.ie/books?id=5IKHbZa ... ne&f=false

Here's a quote from one of the authors' interviewees who was once associated with Women's Studies faculty:
I think you have to ask what kind of personalities and temperaments and psyches are attracted to Women's Studies, as opposed to those who aren't. I mean, is there a psychological profile than can be discerned? The tendency - which I always thought as, in psychoanalytic terms, a borderline personality disorder - to always take an either/or, an us/them, an all-good/all-bad approach, this tendency very much characterized Women's Studies.
Sound familiar? You can easily replace "Women's Studies" from the quote with "Atheism Plus forum" or "FTB commentariat".

DGS
.
.
Posts: 196
Joined: Wed Feb 20, 2013 10:23 am
Location: UK

Re: Feminism - a skeptical approach

#41

Post by DGS »

Dick Strawkins wrote:
windy wrote:
incognito wrote:1) How can skepticism determine whether or not it's wrong to cause people pain?
2) I'm a skeptic who is also a feminist.
For me, feminism is about countering misogyny primarily.
This is a pretty good explanation:

http://dispatchesfromtheclaphamomnibus. ... nists.html
That looks like an interesting blog, thanks for the tip!
Indeed.
It is interesting that the author seems to distance herself from standard academic feminism.
She linked to the following article by describing it as a great paper- it is basically a criticism of the unscientific and unfounded basis of gender feminism, written by an equity feminist.

http://www.epjournal.net/wp-content/upl ... 103943.pdf
Hi, you linked to my blog DGS above. This is an interesting forum. Are you a response to the general irrationality to be found on the freethought blogs these days (in my admittedly limited exposure to them via their proposed anti-flirting - I mean anti-harrassment policy [see http://freethoughtblogs.com/lousycanuck ... ment-68146, I come in on post 42]). Other than this I've had a few unproductive discussions with Ophelia Benson re A+

I have another more active forum on FB here https://www.facebook.com/groups/2454842234/

Dick Strawkins
.
.
Posts: 5859
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 4:34 pm

Re: Feminism - a skeptical approach

#42

Post by Dick Strawkins »

DGS wrote:
Dick Strawkins wrote:
windy wrote:
incognito wrote:1) How can skepticism determine whether or not it's wrong to cause people pain?
2) I'm a skeptic who is also a feminist.
For me, feminism is about countering misogyny primarily.
This is a pretty good explanation:

http://dispatchesfromtheclaphamomnibus. ... nists.html
That looks like an interesting blog, thanks for the tip!
Indeed.
It is interesting that the author seems to distance herself from standard academic feminism.
She linked to the following article by describing it as a great paper- it is basically a criticism of the unscientific and unfounded basis of gender feminism, written by an equity feminist.

http://www.epjournal.net/wp-content/upl ... 103943.pdf
Hi, you linked to my blog DGS above. This is an interesting forum. Are you a response to the general irrationality to be found on the freethought blogs these days (in my admittedly limited exposure to them via their proposed anti-flirting - I mean anti-harrassment policy [see http://freethoughtblogs.com/lousycanuck ... ment-68146, I come in on post 42]). Other than this I've had a few unproductive discussions with Ophelia Benson re A+

I have another more active forum on FB here https://www.facebook.com/groups/2454842234/
Hi DGS!
I really like your blog.
This is the notorious slymepit - the source of all evil.
According to the official line on Freethought Blogs.
It is basically an offshoot of the regulars on the Scienceblog ERV - who were involved in a long discussion about the greedy hypocrisy and malicious nastiness of the group of US based skeptics who have come to monopolize the atheist/skeptics conference circuit in the US.
Abbie, the host of that site, is a believer in free speech and because she refused to shut down the conversation she became the subject of harrassment, both online and in real life when Greg Laden and Stefanie Zvan tried to get her dismissed from her PhD program - all because of her allowing this discussion on her site.
When they started to campaign to get National Geographic (the owners of Scienceblogs) to remove her blog we decided to preempt them and migrated here to an independent site.

Basically this site has one major theme, discussing and cataloging evidence of the recent descent of the US skeptic community into anarchy due to the attempted takeover by various types of social justice warriors.
Most people on the slymepit are (generally) left wing and would probably best be described as equity feminists - although I guess few actually describe themselves as feminists due to the way the word has been twisted by the freethought bloggers.
We are very open minded here. Nobody gets banned and you don't get the sort of nastiness you see as standard on Butterflies and Wheels if you disagree with anyone.

So welcome, please join in, it would be great to have your input.

By the way, most of the discussion takes place in the Periodic Table forum,
viewtopic.php?f=31&t=262&start=1275
and if you start posting there you will be welcomed with the standard noobs greeting of, "Fuck Off" (Its a tradition! :) )

Guest

Re: Feminism - a skeptical approach

#43

Post by Guest »

Are all the threads Anne Robinson themed??

DGS
.
.
Posts: 196
Joined: Wed Feb 20, 2013 10:23 am
Location: UK

Re: Feminism - a skeptical approach

#44

Post by DGS »

Guest wrote:Are all the threads Anne Robinson themed??
Opps, that was from me btw :D

KiwiInOz
.
.
Posts: 5425
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 3:28 pm
Location: Brisbane

Re: Feminism - a skeptical approach

#45

Post by KiwiInOz »

DGS wrote:
Guest wrote:Are all the threads Anne Robinson themed??
Opps, that was from me btw :D
No - that's just Lsuoma exerting his thread naming privilege (being the Slymepit host and general fascist bastard).

Welcome.

KiwiInOz
.
.
Posts: 5425
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 3:28 pm
Location: Brisbane

Re: Feminism - a skeptical approach

#46

Post by KiwiInOz »

Dick Strawkins wrote:By the way, most of the discussion takes place in the Periodic Table forum,
viewtopic.php?f=31&t=262&start=1275
and if you start posting there you will be welcomed with the standard noobs greeting of, "Fuck Off" (Its a tradition! :) )
It's essentially the primary filter. Can you handle bad words and give as good as you get.

Dive on in - the Slyme is warm.

DGS
.
.
Posts: 196
Joined: Wed Feb 20, 2013 10:23 am
Location: UK

Re: Feminism - a skeptical approach

#47

Post by DGS »

KiwiInOz wrote:
Dick Strawkins wrote:By the way, most of the discussion takes place in the Periodic Table forum,
viewtopic.php?f=31&t=262&start=1275
and if you start posting there you will be welcomed with the standard noobs greeting of, "Fuck Off" (Its a tradition! :) )
It's essentially the primary filter. Can you handle bad words and give as good as you get.

Dive on in - the Slyme is warm.
I have to be disciplined and finish a paper. Then I will

Dick Strawkins
.
.
Posts: 5859
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 4:34 pm

Re: Feminism - a skeptical approach

#48

Post by Dick Strawkins »

DGS wrote:
KiwiInOz wrote:
Dick Strawkins wrote:By the way, most of the discussion takes place in the Periodic Table forum,
viewtopic.php?f=31&t=262&start=1275
and if you start posting there you will be welcomed with the standard noobs greeting of, "Fuck Off" (Its a tradition! :) )
It's essentially the primary filter. Can you handle bad words and give as good as you get.

Dive on in - the Slyme is warm.
I have to be disciplined and finish a paper. Then I will
Please do. :clap:
I like your cartoons too!

windy
.
.
Posts: 2140
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 12:41 am
Location: Tom of Finland-land

Re: Feminism - a skeptical approach

#49

Post by windy »

Welcome, DGS! Browsing through your FB group now... oh wait, I should be finishing a paper too :oops:

EdwardGemmer
.
.
Posts: 496
Joined: Sat Jan 12, 2013 2:15 pm

Re: Feminism - a skeptical approach

#50

Post by EdwardGemmer »

I try to keep things simple, because my limited brain doesn't understand things with more than 50 words. I think of feminism as the promotion of women and their point of view. Obviously, women don't have a uniform point of view, so there is lots of room for diversity.

noblehawk2
.
.
Posts: 33
Joined: Tue Feb 19, 2013 2:30 am

Re: Feminism - a skeptical approach

#51

Post by noblehawk2 »

I doubt that the people with the power at FTB and A+ actually believe themselves most of the drivel they peddle with regards to Femisism. The main thing as far as they are concerned is to be as sensationalist as possible with a view to staying on the gravy train as long as possible. Just as soon as the train begins to lose momentum then they will jump ship and find a host to live off.

TheMan
.
.
Posts: 709
Joined: Mon Sep 24, 2012 3:56 pm
Location: Sydney, Australia.

Re: Feminism - a skeptical approach

#52

Post by TheMan »

The other definition of Patriarchy that I have come across is that that while many obstacles have been removed that normally thwart a woman becoming say...a CEO of a large multinational corporation the system or "rules" i.e. politics, tactics and "playing the game" are still patriarchal in nature.

DGS
.
.
Posts: 196
Joined: Wed Feb 20, 2013 10:23 am
Location: UK

Re: Feminism - a skeptical approach

#53

Post by DGS »

This is what my recent paper is about - which I've just submitted this morning - so you'll have to forgive me as my brain is now in post-sub freefall! Lemme know if this makes sense...

I think there's a few things about feminism which cause confusion today. Main one being, there isn't one but many feminismS. Liberal, egalitarian feminist sentiments are by far the most popular to the unordained layman, but within the feminist hinterland, liberal feminism is not the orthodoxy. 'Radical' feminism is. Yes, radical feminism is now the orthodoxy.

This occurred when second wave feminism officially dumped the policy of achieving equality via reform (this is the essence of liberal feminism) for the more radical strategy of taking down the mechanism of inequality, which for feminists is that behemoth patriarchy. They did this without testing their premises about patriarchy which, under analysis, appear to be (quoting myself here) "1. That patriarchy is a socially constructed apparatus which enforces notions of sex and gender which equate to male supremacy and female inferiority, i.e. sexism/chauvinism (de Beauvoir, 1949/1986; Cudd, 2011); 2. That patriarchy is the mechanism by which all men institutionally oppress all women (Gamble, 2001); 3. That all creeds of feminisms are united in the fight against patriarchy (Gamble, 2001)."

The problem much feminist theory encounters, and is of interest to sceptics, is the unfalsified basis of its central dogma and its reliance on social constructivist theory to prop it up. From flawed premises come flawed conclusions and all that. But try telling an orthodox feminist that and not come out apparently covered in misogyny!

DGS
.
.
Posts: 196
Joined: Wed Feb 20, 2013 10:23 am
Location: UK

Re: Feminism - a skeptical approach

#54

Post by DGS »

Dick Strawkins wrote: A week or so ago the slymepit had a poll about feminism that used PZ Myers definition of feminism (plagiarized from Rebecca West):
"Feminism is the radical notion that women are people."
Virtually everyone who answered the poll agreed with the idea that "women are people".
So?
Does this mean that the Slymepit is a site full of feminists*?
(*=PZ Myers defined)
There is no real technical distinction between traditional liberal feminism and egalitarianism - well there is - but it's complicated. It would be better if the word feminism could be dropped to be honest. It's too unwieldy. In a world of feminismS the singular term feminism is meaningless. I'd rather call myself an egalitarian than a feminist, hence my blog is called Darwinian gender studies.
I want to know if there is something I am not getting.
Is there a type of feminism, distinct from basic humanism, that will survive the sceptical process?
Probably not. Feminism today is not primarily about achieving equality but about dismantling patriarchy. Even before they actually understand what patriarchy is, (this is another paper I'm going to be working on) which would be a bit worrisome if they actually had any hope of achieving it (they don't).
Is the equity feminism-gender feminism dichotomy a real one? or is that division mainly an assumed one from the point of view of MRA anti-feminist groups?
Yes. BUT MRA's usually don't say (or know) that equity feminism (these days) also buys into the patriarchy 'narrative'. Plus the fact that MRA's are usually very clearly playing to win - not share - just as the radical feminists are. They kind of cancel each other out in their rabidness. The rad fems and the MRAs should go get a room!

Dick Strawkins
.
.
Posts: 5859
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 4:34 pm

Re: Feminism - a skeptical approach

#55

Post by Dick Strawkins »

DGS wrote:
Dick Strawkins wrote: A week or so ago the slymepit had a poll about feminism that used PZ Myers definition of feminism (plagiarized from Rebecca West):
"Feminism is the radical notion that women are people."
Virtually everyone who answered the poll agreed with the idea that "women are people".
So?
Does this mean that the Slymepit is a site full of feminists*?
(*=PZ Myers defined)
There is no real technical distinction between traditional liberal feminism and egalitarianism - well there is - but it's complicated. It would be better if the word feminism could be dropped to be honest. It's too unwieldy. In a world of feminismS the singular term feminism is meaningless. I'd rather call myself an egalitarian than a feminist, hence my blog is called Darwinian gender studies.
I want to know if there is something I am not getting.
Is there a type of feminism, distinct from basic humanism, that will survive the sceptical process?
Probably not. Feminism today is not primarily about achieving equality but about dismantling patriarchy. Even before they actually understand what patriarchy is, (this is another paper I'm going to be working on) which would be a bit worrisome if they actually had any hope of achieving it (they don't).
Is the equity feminism-gender feminism dichotomy a real one? or is that division mainly an assumed one from the point of view of MRA anti-feminist groups?
Yes. BUT MRA's usually don't say (or know) that equity feminism (these days) also buys into the patriarchy 'narrative'. Plus the fact that MRA's are usually very clearly playing to win - not share - just as the radical feminists are. They kind of cancel each other out in their rabidness. The rad fems and the MRAs should go get a room!
Most of the MRAs on this site (there's about 5 or 6 regulars who are MRAs) are from the milder side of that particular tribe - but I know what you mean! We've had a few arguments over some of the vicious nonsense that AVFM gets up to - particularly their doxxing hit-list.
The main MRA movement does come across as political in nature, even though they like to think themselves as evidence based skeptics.
I put up with enough of that petty political nonsense years ago in university (the head of the socialist group at my college thought he was Che Guevara.)

DGS
.
.
Posts: 196
Joined: Wed Feb 20, 2013 10:23 am
Location: UK

Re: Feminism - a skeptical approach

#56

Post by DGS »

As long as they are set to receive as well and broadcast! :)

Dick Strawkins
.
.
Posts: 5859
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 4:34 pm

Re: Feminism - a skeptical approach

#57

Post by Dick Strawkins »

DGS wrote:As long as they are set to receive as well and broadcast! :)
I would guess that most of the people on this site are atheists and skeptics (seeing as the site is primarily based on a dispute within that community).
The MRAs, on the other hand are not necessarily atheists or skeptics; they've joined here in a kind of, 'my enemy's enemy is my ally', way.
There's therefore a bit of variation amongst them as how open they are to accept evidence that challenges their narrative.

Altair
.
.
Posts: 800
Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2012 6:44 am

Re: Feminism - a skeptical approach

#58

Post by Altair »

Dick Strawkins wrote:
DGS wrote:As long as they are set to receive as well and broadcast! :)
I would guess that most of the people on this site are atheists and skeptics (seeing as the site is primarily based on a dispute within that community).
The MRAs, on the other hand are not necessarily atheists or skeptics; they've joined here in a kind of, 'my enemy's enemy is my ally', way.
There's therefore a bit of variation amongst them as how open they are to accept evidence that challenges their narrative.
I consider myself an egalitarian with MRAish leanings, and also a skeptic. Don't know about the rest.

:text-welcomewave: DGS

DGS
.
.
Posts: 196
Joined: Wed Feb 20, 2013 10:23 am
Location: UK

Re: Feminism - a skeptical approach

#59

Post by DGS »

Thanks :D

debaser71
.
.
Posts: 841
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2012 10:03 am

Re: Feminism - a skeptical approach

#60

Post by debaser71 »

Just gonna say that the fact that people and groups who aren't skeptics but pretend to skeptics is a GOOD thing in general. It was't so long ago that the word 'skeptic' made people groan. So much of my past internetdom was about getting atheism and skepticism mainstream. Mission accomplished...I'd say. We have radfems and MRA all wanting to be in the club. We've taken religion down several notches...people see our social "power"...sorry I'm sort of lost as to what words to use.

Anyway regarding feminsm, two places I like are feministcritics.org and genderratic.com ... fc is highly moderated ge is not.

For me, since there are already words like egalitarian and humanist, to me, "feminism" means gender feminism. I refuse to play the "feminism is the radical notion..." stupid game.

Locked