A critique of feminism.

ILoveYourVibes

Its stuck in the adversarial paradigm.

It just tends to institutionalize a kind of intellectual trolling culture.

Because its view is to win by challenging it's opposite.

it’s epistemically limited.

You just invite two polarized extremes and have one try to challenge the other.

The extreme feminist and the MRA type.

Or feminism as a reaction to something. It's always REACTIONARY.


Accomplishments that are attributed to it are often done so spuriously.

What is to say it was not capitalism and its needs that drove the need for women in the workforce. It started with WW1 and WW2 women were NEEDED. And they joined the war effort. Capitalism needed more workers. Etc.

Feminism had been around since the 1600s ...with Mary Astell and Heinrich Agrippa.

Really it took that long to accomplish it??? I don't think it was feminism at all i think it was war and capitalism ...

Yet feminism takes credit for women's lib.

Again with the suffrage movement. Largely middleclass white women. Who largely ignored workingclass and black women.

The Representation of the People Act 1918 excluded working class women for a DECADE. Working class women got it in 1928 along with working class men at the same time. Yet this is attributed to feminism. Not class privilege.

Black women in the states could not vote until 65 and there is not much to be said from white women about it during the time. And they represent what is largely considered mainstream feminist thought at this time.

How the civil rights movement in the states opened the world for women. ...yet again feminists take credit for it.

If you look at the abortion referendum here. Feminists were largely quiet and sedate if not scared to approach it. It took the death of a woman to engage the human emotions and outpours to bring it about. And THAT is what did it. It wasn't feminism. If it had been feminism we would have it legalized in the 70's.

Yet you would swear with all we have to thank from science from medicine etc that everything we have today we have from feminism and older female feminists. I challenge that view.

I don't deny it accomplished a few things. But it wasn't for all women. And feminism did infact help keep racism and classism in place.


Also feminism itself has a masculine world view.

It has male values. It's like patriarchy invaded the female mind. What were seen as traditionally female traits were devalued. Meekness kindness etc come secondary to strength power aggression.

feminism does not value women. It values MEN. And seeks to make women valuable by encouraging them to aim for male characteristics.

I don't think that its good for the world if this happens.

Femininity is a worthy value. It is ok to be weak and sensitive. In fact the world doesn't value those things enough.

And its kind of silly to say those qualities are not female. Well we at least have in the past THOUGHT of them as female. Maybe that is why we never valued them.

Idols are tough ...strong ...they beat the bad guy. They never bring all sides together.

We are losing femininity i don't mean make up . I mean gentleness, empathy, sensitivity, caring, sweetness, compassion, tolerance, nurturance, deference, and succorance are traits that have traditionally been cited as feminine.

Why is being a LAD better than being understanding and kind honorable patient etc?

And i don't honestly blame feminists for NOT wanting to be feminine. We don't value or respect these things in society.

We value bullies and aggression. I think we have gone wrong.

I think traditional femininity has a lot to offer the world and the world needs it.

We should at male and female as counter parts and see each other with understanding.

And no i don't mean exclude other genders and gender fluid people. I would never be so hard minded.



Feminism didnt do much except further devalue a lot of good things about humanity that we needed.

Black Swan

I've heard the feminism word tossed about as if it was an all inclusive either/or nominal categorization applied to the philosophical and political orientation of some women; but frankly, I don't know what feminism is. Methinks at best it is very misleading, if not spurious on occasion. All too often in debate over important issues the "feminism" label is cast against an opponent in ad hominem fashion when attempting to discredit the person rather than the content of what they say.

I've read Helene Deutsch and her prescientific, psychoanalytic case study based female "penis envy" paradigm. I've compared that with Karen Horney's challenge of Deutsch's position with a male procreation envy paradigm, also limited at the anecdotal, case study unit of analysis. Both I reject.

Of more interest to me was the scientific research of Corianne Hutt. She studied the biology of behaviour, in particular women's behaviour in comparison with men's. Unlike the armchair anecdotes of Deutsch and Horney, Hutt suggested that the biology between women and men was to some extent different, and such differences may influence behaviours to some degree. Brain structures were measured, and different specialisations were identified between the two genders. These differences were not better, only different, and investigated the extent that these natural differences may influence behaviour in terms of how "form followed function." Hutt concluded that there was still a great deal of research that needed to be conducted; and staying within the research methods protocol of Karl Popper, such researches only suggested, did not prove, and were subject to falsification if a preponderance of data opposed earlier positions.

So when the feminism label is applied, I am cautious as to what it may mean, yesterday, today, and tomorrow; and if it has any merit when attempting to describe human behavior, be that female or male.

Nobelium

For anyone interested in real unbiased feminism and philosophy, instead of more sexism, Christina Hoff Sommers is worth checking out.

https://youtu.be/4sKBMcLzRHY?list=PLytTJqkSQqtr2se5wbDlvFhUt0K4ewRt8

Black Swan

Nobelium wrote: »

For anyone interested in real unbiased feminism and philosophy, instead of more sexism, Christina Hoff Sommers is worth checking out.

https://youtu.be/4sKBMcLzRHY?list=PLytTJqkSQqtr2se5wbDlvFhUt0K4ewRt8

Thanks for showing a source, but for our discussion purposes, I would recommend that you take one or more points made by Christina Hoff Sommers and discuss them here.

Fathom

Merriam Webster definition of feminism: 1 : the theory of the political, economic, and social equality of the sexes 2 : organized activity on behalf of women's rights and interests

Black Swan

Susan James (1998) characterizes feminism as follows:

"Feminism is grounded on the belief that women are oppressed or disadvantaged by comparison with men, and that their oppression is in some way illegitimate or unjustified. Under the umbrella of this general characterization there are, however, many interpretations of women and their oppression, so that it is a mistake to think of feminism as a single philosophical doctrine, or as implying an agreed political program."

Ref: James, Susan, 1998, “Feminism”, in Edward Craig (ed.), Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Vol. 10, London: Routledge, p. 576.

ILoveYourVibes

Fathom wrote: »

Merriam Webster definition of feminism:
1 : the theory of the political, economic, and social equality of the sexes
2 : organized activity on behalf of women's rights and interests

I understand.

But this is on paper.

In reality though did feminism achieve this? Or was it capitalism?

Why did it take so many hundreds of years in between the academic enlightenment to reality?

Why did different types of women feel ignored by feminism?

If feminism is a theory as a theory it does seem to adopt the same paradigms used to oppress women. The adversarial paradigm is pretty much standard in feminist theory. I feel it's patriarchal.

I think feminism is just so very male. It's not very forgiving.

ILoveYourVibes

Black Swan wrote: »

Susan James (1998) characterizes feminism as follows:

"Feminism is grounded on the belief that women are oppressed or disadvantaged by comparison with men, and that their oppression is in some way illegitimate or unjustified. Under the umbrella of this general characterization there are, however, many interpretations of women and their oppression, so that it is a mistake to think of feminism as a single philosophical doctrine, or as implying an agreed political program."

Ref: James, Susan, 1998, “Feminism”, in Edward Craig (ed.), Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Vol. 10, London: Routledge, p. 576.

True. But oppression is nuanced.

A white upper class woman is less oppressed in the 1700's than a working class woman.

And if we are honest does that second woman owe most of her liberation to workers rights and social rights more than women's rights?

Marie Antoinette led a very privileged life. She might not have been able to choose her husband ..but her husband couldn't choose his wife either.

A black slave or a working class woman had different oppression. Some class based some not.

Is this not an economic issue?

I disagree that feminism is interested in the rights of women. I think it sees women as weak and they need to be strengthened. Feminism admires the strong and the powerful. It aims to imitate that.

Feminism takes a lot of credit for things it really didn't achieve. And none of the blame for things it needs to look at.

It works for some women not all women.

ILoveYourVibes

Black Swan wrote: »

I've heard the feminism word tossed about as if it was an all inclusive either/or nominal categorization applied to the philosophical and political orientation of some women; but frankly, I don't know what feminism is. Methinks at best it is very misleading, if not spurious on occasion. All too often in debate over important issues the "feminism" label is cast against an opponent in ad hominem fashion when attempting to discredit the person rather than the content of what they say.

I've read Helene Deutsch and her prescientific, psychoanalytic case study based female "penis envy" paradigm. I've compared that with Karen Horney's challenge of Deutsch's position with a male procreation envy paradigm, also limited at the anecdotal, case study unit of analysis. Both I reject.

Of more interest to me was the scientific research of Corianne Hutt. She studied the biology of behaviour, in particular women's behaviour in comparison with men's. Unlike the armchair anecdotes of Deutsch and Horney, Hutt suggested that the biology between women and men was to some extent different, and such differences may influence behaviours to some degree. Brain structures were measured, and different specialisations were identified between the two genders. These differences were not better, only different, and investigated the extent that these natural differences may influence behaviour in terms of how "form followed function." Hutt concluded that there was still a great deal of research that needed to be conducted; and staying within the research methods protocol of Karl Popper, such researches only suggested, did not prove, and were subject to falsification if a preponderance of data opposed earlier positions.

So when the feminism label is applied, I am cautious as to what it may mean, yesterday, today, and tomorrow; and if it has any merit when attempting to describe human behavior, be that female or male.

I agree with you 100%

The thing is as a working title etc feminism has become a catch all term.

Feminist epistemology etc feminist socialism.
Its so so very vague.

And i don't honestly want to oppress anyone etc. Or stop debate. But the more ' woke ' we get the more vague it seems to become.

If you see sexism as systemic (which is might well be i don't know) feminism becomes a vague subject which at very best has some sort of prime directive. And at worst has no anchor at all.

At the same time i don't want to undermine people who call themselves feminists etc.

Fathom

ILoveYourVibes wrote: »

Feminist epistemology... Its so so very vague.

Definition for this discussion? Feminism is defined as...

Black Swan

Fathom wrote: »

Definition for this discussion? Feminism is defined as...

Agree. Given labeling ad hominems, and ambiguity as to concept discussed, a clear definition would be useful.

Fathom

Black Swan wrote: »

Of more interest to me was the scientific research of Corianne Hutt. She studied the biology of behaviour, in particular women's behaviour in comparison with men's. Unlike the armchair anecdotes of Deutsch and Horney, Hutt suggested that the biology between women and men was to some extent different, and such differences may influence behaviours to some degree. Brain structures were measured, and different specialisations were identified between the two genders. These differences were not better, only different, and investigated the extent that these natural differences may influence behaviour in terms of how "form followed function."

Scientific. Lacks sensationalism. Doesn't draw media. Or ratings. Or advertising profits.

Black Swan

Interesting article that discusses what has been suggested here regarding the labeling of persons as feminists. Questions the utility of the label and if it has any meaning as used by many:

Janice McCabe, What's in a Label? The Relationship between Feminist Self-Identification and "Feminist" Attitudes among U.S. Women and Men, Gender and Society, Vol. 19, No. 4 (August 2005), pp. 480-505.

Fathom

Good reference.

Black Swan

ILoveYourVibes wrote: »

I think feminism is just so very male. It's not very forgiving.

Not sure what you suggest with these two comments.

Fathom

ILoveYourVibes wrote: »

feminism does not value women. It values MEN. And seeks to make women valuable by encouraging them to aim for male characteristics.

How? Philosopher quotes? Scholarly literature support?

This is it

I think the OP has ditched you

Black Swan

This is it wrote: »

I think the OP has ditched you

MOD: You could provide some substance to our discussion that may contribute value, rather than such comments without merit? How about it? Ever discussed or offered "A critique of feminism?"