Feminism vs. Mens Rights?

[Pteryxx]

seriously? "dogma exists therefore your argument is invalid"? Your conclusion has to *derive from* your premise, not just be stated next to it.

[Robby B]

The Courtier’s Reply

Wow. P.Z. Myers made up a meme that gives people even the vague impression that they can appeal to that meme to replace research or further reading? What an astounding lack of forethought on his part. He should have known it would be misused and misunderstood very quickly.

[Steersman]

Tue Aug 28, 2012 2:00 am

... Just asserting that something is “incorrect” does not make it so – tends to suggest that what is in play is not reason and logic and facts, but dogma.

And, one might reasonably argue that your list of links and theorists qualifies as The Courtier’s Reply ... the least you could do would be to quote some relevant sections of various journals that might at least suggest there’s some credibility to your argument ....

I see you don't know what the Courtier’s Reply is.

Courtier’s Reply:

Replying to critics who felt that Dawkins ignored sophisticated versions of modern theology, Myers compared them to courtiers fawning on the legendary emperor who had no clothes:

I have considered the impudent accusations of Mr Dawkins with exasperation at his lack of serious scholarship. He has apparently not read the detailed discourses of Count Roderigo of Seville on the exquisite and exotic leathers of the Emperor's boots, nor does he give a moment's consideration to Bellini's masterwork, On the Luminescence of the Emperor's Feathered Hat. We have entire schools dedicated to writing learned treatises on the beauty of the Emperor's raiment, and every major newspaper runs a section dedicated to imperial fashion; Dawkins cavalierly dismisses them all. He even laughs at the highly popular and most persuasive arguments of his fellow countryman, Lord D. T. Mawkscribbler, who famously pointed out that the Emperor would not wear common cotton, nor uncomfortable polyester, but must, I say must, wear undergarments of the finest silk. Dawkins arrogantly ignores all these deep philosophical ponderings to crudely accuse the Emperor of nudity.

Considering that the essence of that is to tell Dawkins, and other critics of religion, to go play in the traffic, to go read reams of bafflegab, before he is entitled to call out religion, to “accuse the Emperor of nudity”, I would say it is exactly analogous to you providing a list of journals and theologians, sorry – theorists, without actually trying to address the point by providing some real facts to buttress your argument. Hence, The Courtier’s Reply.

Which, one might suggest, gives some credence to the argument that your Feminist Emperor is looking a little threadbare ....

[Pwrong]

Feminists don't necessarily care about or understand men's issues

*sigh*
it's almost as if I didn't just post and explanation of why this is incorrect, with several links and named several more male Feminist Theorists who write about men's issues and masculinities.

Many feminists do care about and understand men's issues, which is great. It's just not necessarily the case. You don't have to understand men's issues to be a feminist.

[Steersman]

The Courtier’s Reply

Wow. P.Z. Myers made up a meme that gives people even the vague impression that they can appeal to that meme to replace research or further reading? What an astounding lack of forethought on his part. He should have known it would be misused and misunderstood very quickly.

The point was that Jadehawk simply asserted that something is true and then told me, in effect as she wasn’t all that clear who she was responding to, to go and read a whole raft of journals and authors without in the least making an effort to address the point raised with some actual facts. As indicated that seems awfully similar to the claims of the theologians ....

Seems to me the questions are how much bias all of that dogma represents, how much it might skew masculine issues, how much credibility there is in that dogma. Not simply a case of accepting it as Revealed Truth ....

But if the latter is what you’re all on about then maybe you should formulate a catechism for the faithful to recite in moments of doubt ...

As for misunderstanding the meme, you might want to take a really close look at what I quoted just above on the topic ....

[RedReplicant]

The courtier's reply argument is inapplicable if you don't have any education about what a subject. It's solely useful for obscure references, not for understanding basic tenets of theory. This is similar to arguing that anyone seeking to disprove the idea that Martin Luther ate babies by referencing his work and biography is using the courtier's reply because they are citing sources.

Read some feminist theory. Educate yourself instead of relying on easy "fallacies" to throw out considerable scholarly research.

[ElGatoCello]

Tue Aug 28, 2012 2:00 am

... Just asserting that something is “incorrect” does not make it so – tends to suggest that what is in play is not reason and logic and facts, but dogma.

And, one might reasonably argue that your list of links and theorists qualifies as The Courtier’s Reply ... the least you could do would be to quote some relevant sections of various journals that might at least suggest there’s some credibility to your argument ....

I see you don't know what the Courtier’s Reply is.

Courtier’s Reply:

Replying to critics who felt that Dawkins ignored sophisticated versions of modern theology, Myers compared them to courtiers fawning on the legendary emperor who had no clothes:

I have considered the impudent accusations of Mr Dawkins with exasperation at his lack of serious scholarship. He has apparently not read the detailed discourses of Count Roderigo of Seville on the exquisite and exotic leathers of the Emperor's boots, nor does he give a moment's consideration to Bellini's masterwork, On the Luminescence of the Emperor's Feathered Hat. We have entire schools dedicated to writing learned treatises on the beauty of the Emperor's raiment, and every major newspaper runs a section dedicated to imperial fashion; Dawkins cavalierly dismisses them all. He even laughs at the highly popular and most persuasive arguments of his fellow countryman, Lord D. T. Mawkscribbler, who famously pointed out that the Emperor would not wear common cotton, nor uncomfortable polyester, but must, I say must, wear undergarments of the finest silk. Dawkins arrogantly ignores all these deep philosophical ponderings to crudely accuse the Emperor of nudity.

Considering that the essence of that is to tell Dawkins, and other critics of religion, to go play in the traffic, to go read reams of bafflegab, before he is entitled to call out religion, to “accuse the Emperor of nudity”, I would say it is exactly analogous to you providing a list of journals and theologians, sorry – theorists, without actually trying to address the point by providing some real facts to buttress your argument. Hence, The Courtier’s Reply.

Which, one might suggest, gives some credence to the argument that your Feminist Emperor is looking a little threadbare ....

I think there's a slight difference between providing resources so that you can be on the same page and saying "You're obviously incapable of playing at the adults' table. Go away."

I think that we can all agree that there is a fairly broad and bold line between what may be considered "providing Good-Faith suggested reading" or "specifically providing specific counterexamples with the good-faith understanding that you will be forced to google them yourself" and blowing someone off or intellectually bullying someone.

[A_Bergmann]

Feminists don't necessarily care about or understand men's issues

*sigh*
it's almost as if I didn't just post and explanation of why this is incorrect, with several links and named several more male Feminist Theorists who write about men's issues and masculinities.

Many feminists do care about and understand men's issues, which is great. It's just not necessarily the case. You don't have to understand men's issues to be a feminist.

You don't have to understand all womens issues either to identify as a feminist, nor do you have to understand all skeptics issues to identify as a skeptic. But that doesn't change that men's issues is intrinsically a part of feminism does it?

[Jadehawk]

Just asserting something to be true without providing any evidence – you know, the stuff you’re supposed to have in spades if you’re real, true skeptics – that that is the case seems to qualify as dogma by those sources. Reasonable enough set of facts for you?

dude, pick one. either I asserted something without evidence, or I drowned you in reading material. not both.

Considering that the essence of that is to tell Dawkins, and other critics of religion, to go play in the traffic, to go read reams of bafflegab, before he is entitled to call out religion, to “accuse the Emperor of nudity”, I would say it is exactly analogous to you providing a list of journals and theologians, sorry – theorists, without actually trying to address the point by providing some real facts to buttress your argument. Hence, The Courtier’s Reply.

yup. I was right. you've no idea what the Courtier's Reply is. The Coutier's Reply is the assertion that one cannot attack the basics without having to first read the stuff that follows from the basics. The reason the Courtier's Reply is bullshit is that it fails to establish the basics "gods exist" on which the other stuff depends.

Again, since the existence of Feminist Theory and it's general workings as a method of analyzing gender and gender relations are not in dispute, it's entirely sufficient to point out how Feminist Theory applies to masculinity and gender by providing examples.

[Jadehawk]

Many feminists do care about and understand men's issues, which is great. It's just not necessarily the case. You don't have to understand men's issues to be a feminist.

that was not my claim. my claim was that studying masculinities is done via Feminist Theory, and as such your comment is incorrect. either it's nonsensical that "feminists" don't understand men, because it's "feminists" who study men; or it's uselessly trivial, if all it says is that only some Feminist Theorists work specifically on masculinities. In either case, the comment cannot be used in an argument that men need a framework that's not feminist, because Feminist Theory is what gave birth to legitimate Men's Studies and masculinity studies in the first place (I had a long post about this, quoting bits from an essay on masculinities and Feminist Theory, but the auto-logout ate it. I'll try again)

[Grimalkin]

Considering that the essence of that is to tell Dawkins, and other critics of religion, to go play in the traffic, to go read reams of bafflegab, before he is entitled to call out religion, to “accuse the Emperor of nudity”, I would say it is exactly analogous to you providing a list of journals and theologians, sorry – theorists, without actually trying to address the point by providing some real facts to buttress your argument. Hence, The Courtier’s Reply.

Which, one might suggest, gives some credence to the argument that your Feminist Emperor is looking a little threadbare ....

I think you're confusing "You must read every religious text in history before denouncing religion" with "You must actually address evidence handed to you by someone before claiming that they have no evidence."

If you really want to discuss whether the "Feminist Emperor" itself is threadbare, though, that really seems like it belongs in the education thread.

[Jadehawk]

Ok, these are excerpts from an essay about the history of Feminist Theory (with a focus on women's studies rather than sociology; for what that looks like in sociology, you rally are going to have to read the stuff from the journals I linked) in relation to men and masculinities. It's 16 pages long and at times problematic, so I've limited myself to the relevant bits about how Feminist Theory studies men and masculinities, and it's relation to Men's Studies and masculinity studies.

The most important accomplishment of 20th-century feminist theory is the concept of gender as a social construction; that is, the idea that masculinity and femininity are loosely defined, historically variable, and interrelated
social ascriptions to persons with certain kinds of bodies—not the natural, necessary, or ideal characteristics of people with similar genitals. This concept has altered long-standing assumptions about the inherent characteristics of men and women and also about the very division of people into the categories of “men” and “women.”

With the resurgence of a movement for women’s rights in the second half of the 20th century, varied theories developed to explain the causes of male domination, to correct erroneous assumptions about both women and men, and to imagine new kinds of men and of women in new circumstances. These theories charged that cultural ideologies favored men, that social institutions reflected these ideologies, and that men as a group benefited from the subordination of women as a group, despite the great disparities that existed in the advantages accruing to individual men or subgroups of men in relation to other men and to women. Thus men and masculinity play a crucial role in feminist theory, the body of thought that seeks to understand women’s social situation and to articulate justice from a woman-centered perspective. Furthermore, feminist thinking has been fundamental to the formation of contemporary men’s and masculinity studies as intellectual endeavors,academic subjects,and social movements.

[Simone de Beauvoir] attacks the myths of masculine superiority and mind over body by insisting that men, too, are creatures of bodily and sexual infirmity rather than disembodied minds: “Indeed no one is more arrogant toward women, more aggressive or scornful, than the man who is anxious about his virility”(p. xxv). In a current version of this critique, Rosi Braidotti (2002) alleges that “the price men pay for representing the universal is disembodiment, or loss of gendered specificity into the abstraction of phallic masculinity,”and she suggests that men need “to get real”by recognizing their embodiment (p. 355).

Current versions of liberal feminist theories, however, are more sophisticated in their analyses and offer to men’s studies models for inquiries into the gendering of the law, the media,the state,and the professions; civil rights organizations open to male members with accessible goals for social reform; and ideals such as androgyny for combining traditionally
masculine and feminine personality characteristics in individuals.

Psychologist Eleanor Maccoby (1998) represents a recent version of this liberal view in encouraging individuality and freedom of choice for both sexes and allowing for a varied play of masculine and feminine difference across the life cycle. She sees youth “growing up apart”in groups segregated by sex and adults experiencing “convergence” in sex and work (p. 189). She describes greater divergence within each gender than between the two, notes contradictory components of both masculinity and femininity, and emphasizes that “sex-linked behavior turns out to be a pervasive function of the social context”more than of individual personality (p. 9). Other feminist theorists also seek to deflate gender dualism by viewing gender as developmental across the life course, so that, for example, masculinity might be defined by boys’ development from childishness to maturity rather than by opposition to a denigrated femininity (Ehrenreich, 1983;
Gardiner, 2002).

Rather than accepting male dominance as necessary to human society, Chodorow’s popular theory of 1978 explains it through forms of child rearing that have been universal in the past but that modern technologies and social arrangements can now alter. Furthermore, she describes masculinity as so limiting for men’s lives, rather than so enjoyably privileged, that men should also have incentives for change. If fathers take equal responsibility with mothers for early child care, she argues, gender inequality would disappear, women would be relieved of the unfair burdens of caregiving, and men would gain a satisfying intimacy with their children, women, and each other. Chodorow (1978) thinks “equal parenting”could bring all people “the positive capacities”now restricted to each sex separately, and both sexes would also be more flexible in their choice of sexual objects (p. 218).

other theories are more attentive to the myriad differences that divide men from other men and women from other women, as well as to the commonalities between the sexes and the relationships among the various categories of social inequality (Lorber, 1994; Maccoby, 1998). Feminists of color and many feminists influenced by Marxism emphasize the interconnectedness of gender with other social hierarchies, including nationality, ethnicity, social class, racialized identities, and sexualities. African American feminist theorist Patricia Hill Collins (1999) explains that the “construct of intersectionality references two types of relationships: the interconnectedness of ideas and the social structures in which they occur, and the intersecting hierarchies”of social power; “viewing gender within a logic of intersectionality redefines it as a constellation of ideas and social practices that are historically situated within and that mutually construct multiple systems of oppression” (p. 263) The categories these theorists describe are not additive but transformative, so that, for example, Chicano masculinities are not simply Anglo masculinities with a salsa beat or a dose of machismo but complex responses to Hispanic cultures,Catholic religion, dominant American middle-class white masculine assumptions, and the internal dynamics of Latino families (Gonzalez, 1996).

Black feminists have repeatedly sought to balance understanding of the particular oppressions experienced by women of color with sympathy toward the vicissitudes of men in their communities. They critically examine the difficulties that men of color face in achieving mainstream versions of masculinity and critique those forms of masculinity that depend on sexism and male supremacy. In addition, they join male black intellectuals in indicting the projections of endemic social problems such as male violence against women or substance abuse exclusively onto blacks. Both male and female theorists situate African American gender characteristics within the common history of U.S. racism and the legacy of slavery. In particular, they speak of the dispersal of families and cultures; the imposition of alien ideologies, physical hardship, and degrading servitude; and the denial of education, opportunity, sexual choice, and occupational mobility.

African American feminist theorists repeatedly sought to balance sympathy and critique for African American men. Michelle Wallace (1990) began her book Black Macho and the Myth of the Superwoman (originally published in 1978) with the premise that African American men felt deprived of manhood by white supremacy, so that it was a revolutionary claim for human dignity, not a tautology, when striking male garbage workers mobilized by the Reverend Martin Luther King, Jr., wore signs saying, “I am a man” (p. 1).

[bell hooks] argues that the poor or working class man has been hurt—and sometimes hurts others—by being unable to live up to dominant definitions of masculinity "because he does not have the privilege or power society has taught him “real men”should possess. Alienated, frustrated, pissed off, he may attack, abuse, and oppress an individual woman or women, but he is not reaping positive benefits from his support and perpetuation of sexist ideology [and so is] not exercising privilege." (hooks, 1984, p. 73)

Other U.S. theorists of color and global feminists currently join African American feminists in analyzing ways in which masculinity is constructed in specific historical and cultural contexts. For example, Anna Maria Alonso (1992) describes a Mexican construction of masculinity in which the independent peasant is fully masculine, in opposition to the
wage worker, who is “both like a child and like a woman because he relies on others for his sustenance”(p. 414). Chandra Talpade Mohanty, Ann Russo, and Lourdes Torres (1991) show British imperial rule in India operating through “the ideological construction and consolidation of white masculinity as normative and the corresponding racialization and sexualization of colonized peoples” (p. 15). Chilla Bulbeck (1998), who describes global feminisms often overlooked by Anglo feminists, reports on changing categories of same-sex behavior and “third genders”around the world (p. 154). Evelyn Nakano Glenn (1999) traces the problematic effects of equating masculinity with independence in “the racialized gender construction of American citizenship”(p. 22), and Valentine Moghadam (1999) investigates the interconnections among huge military expenditures, deindustrialization, civil conflict, the rise of fundamentalist movements, and the consequent “reinstitutionalization of patriarchal gender relations”in the developing world (p. 132).

many strands of feminist theory seek to make masculinity visible as a gender,rather than allowing it to retain the prestige of being equated with human rationality or the invisibility of being equated with economic or scientific law.

Many male queer theorists have analyzed abject and alternative masculinities among men in relation to hegemonic masculinities (Bersani, 1988; Thomas, 1996). Some women queer theorists,too,have focused specifically on alternative masculinities, especially as they are represented in the media.

Feminist theories have been shaped by women’s changing place in contemporary societies, and these theories have sometimes proved effective in changing both men’s and women’s consciousness and conditions. The widespread establishment of women’s studies programs in colleges and universities, especially in the United States, has created a pool of practitioners of feminist theory and inspired the establishment of men’s and masculinity studies as well (Boxer, 1998). Although masculinist men’s movements sometimes decry feminism,generally men’s studies treat feminism and feminist theory as scholarly big sisters, perhaps dull, dowdy, outmoded, or too restrictive, but nevertheless models to be followed and bettered. Feminists ridicule masculinist men’s studies and welcome profeminist efforts by men. American feminist journalist Gloria Steinem (1992) announces that “women want a men’s movement” if that means men will “become more nurturing toward children,more able to talk about emotions,”and less violent and controlling (p. v). English psychologist Lynn Segal (1990) regrets the “slow motion”of men toward gender equality and muses that the literature of masculinity “uncannily mirrors” its feminist forebears: it “focuses upon men’s own experiences, generates evidence of men’s gender-specific suffering and has given birth to a new field of enquiry, ‘Men’s Studies’” (2000, p. 160). At present, feminist theorists are citing masculinity scholars more frequently than previously, and vice versa. Feminist thinkers are benefiting from the theoretical insights and empirical findings of masculinity studies that concern the complex asymmetries,changing histories,local conditions, and institutional variances of gender in a wide variety of specific settings. Current textbooks in women’s and masculinity studies agree in their basic feminist premises, all describing hierarchies of dominance, relationally defined gender, and multiple and interactive axes of social oppression (Gardiner, 2003). In a rapidly changing world marked by contradictory forces of war, violence, disrupted ecologies and economies,fundamentalist backlash, enhanced opportunities for women, the feminization of poverty, the casualization of labor, the decline of traditional male wages, the objectification of male bodies,the recognition of more diverse sexualities,the reconfiguration of nationalities and ethnicities, the rise of liberating social movements, and what Donna Haraway (1989) calls the “the paradoxical intensification and erosion of gender itself”(p. 191), feminist theories continue to develop in conversation with men’s and masculinity studies and other movements for social justice. They continue to seek an equality for men and women and for people around the globe at the highest level of human imagination and aspiration rather than the lowest common denominator.

[CallMeRiverton]

Feminists don't necessarily care about or understand men's issues

*sigh*
it's almost as if I didn't just post and explanation of why this is incorrect, with several links and named several more male Feminist Theorists who write about men's issues and masculinities.

Many feminists do care about and understand men's issues, which is great. It's just not necessarily the case. You don't have to understand men's issues to be a feminist.

I would figure you would. Feminism has the goal of getting equality for both genders, not simply females. The fact that this is the goal seems to necessitate knowing about issues effecting both men and women.

I'm sorry, I'm new to discussions about feminism, if I seem clumsy or am making mistakes, please correct me, I'm more well versed talking about LGBT issues as well as dictionary atheist ones.

[wytchy]

Read some feminist theory. Educate yourself instead of relying on easy "fallacies" to throw out considerable scholarly research.

This is literally what I say every time this issue comes up. I'm getting tired of people asserting to me that feminism is a woman-only form of social activism because it only focuses on women, and really the Best People are concerned with equality for men and women, not just women. It truly shows shows that they totally lack a most basic understanding of feminist theory and gender studies.

As for the idea that we need separate terms for people who are invested in gender equality and are female (feminists) and people who are invested in gender equality and are male (masculinist) while the opposites are only capable of being allies is ridiculous, for the same reasons. As already laid out in previous posts, gender stereotypes and discrimination stems from a patriarchal, sexist framework that our society operates in. It harms everyone because the norms backed by misogyny are limiting and harmful to everyone. A man who believes in and advocates for gender equality is not a feminist ally, he's a feminist.

I'm getting the feeling that this discussion needed to take place in the 101 forum, perhaps.

EDIT: Jadehawk, you deserve an award for taking the time to pull out all those excerpts for people to help make their research more bite-sized. Here's to hoping no one asks you to read it aloud to them as well, lest you commit yet another fallacy.

[Lovely]

The name of this thread kinda comes off strange in my mind. And I mean no animosity towards yoha_ahoy for choosing it.

Merely that "vs" in the middle there.

Feminists fight against the patriarchy that hurts all humans. I don't feel the need to say I'm both a feminist and interested in gender equality for men, because feminism encompasses all humans (news at 11: men are humans, too). This is good for everyone. So, feminism is a fine choice of word. I know that this seems odd to some, but Feminism is the gender neutral term.

[jgruss42]

It's just important to remember that everyone should choose their own label, and not claim that one label is superior for any reason.

While I support the idea of people choosing their own label, in order for communication to be effective and in order for arguments to be meaningful (and not just semantic), I do feel that an overall agreement on language is appropriate.

Personally, I say 'Gender Equality' more often than I used to. But I make very few assumptions when other people use any label.

[laconicsax]

It seems to me that men's rights, in the positive and egalitarian sense and not the MRA sense, is encompassed by feminism's goal of dismantling the patriarchy.

Exactly. Can anyone name a "men's rights" (not MRA) issue that isn't at least partially the result of patriarchy? Hell, even some of the shit that MRAs are on about is patriarchy-related but they can't conceive of the idea that by working to end the oppression of women, they'll better their own lives.

[surreptitious57]

So I'm writing a blog post on this topic and I was wondering what other people think? I tend to be of the persuasion that mens rights fits under feminism because feminism ideally wants equal rights and opportunities for all genders. When I see men's rights I tend to see men's rights put above women's rights, and I don't feel that's fair, just as putting women's right's over men's isn't fair. Maybe we need a gender-neutral term. Thoughts?

There is a gender neutral term: it is at the very top of this page. Ordinarily I am not one for political correctness and this really is not that anyway, just that it invokes the principle of that Hell paved idea, but being all inclusive is the key here. The problem with the terms, feminism and masculinism, is that they imply division or favouritism, even if unintentionally so. Now humanism on the other hand does the opposite. We are all humans, regardless of anything else. So it would be the right and proper thing therefore to adopt this, both as a term and a philosophy, and substitute it for feminism and masculinism, both as terms and as philosophies.

[SallyStrange]

Masculine studies? Absolutely.

Equality for men? No problem.

Men's Rights? As in, the Men's Rights Movement? Or Men's Rights Activists? NO FUCKING WAY. I'll give you four reasons why.

1. http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/i ... bout-women

2. http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/i ... -the-sites

3. http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/i ... r-on-women

And, last but not least:

4. http://manboobz.com/

The whole point of this is to DISASSOCIATE ourselves from bigotry, right?

Steersman is familiar to me and as I recall, he is not an honest interlocutor.

[SallyStrange]

Given that feminism is disputed, doubted, and diverged upon every day, by feminists, and has been ever since its inception, no, your set of "facts" is not quite reasonable enough to establish that feminism is a dogma.

First, name an established belief or doctrine held by feminists.

Second, show that when it has been doubted or disputed, that dissent has been crushed and expunged from the movement.

You can't, of course; the numerous waves of feminism are evidence enough that there is plenty of doubting and disputing going on within feminism, but it will be amusing to watch you try.

There are, of course, also some beliefs that aren't much disputed, generally because there is ample evidence to support them.

So your challenge is to identify those beliefs that aren't disputed but which don't have much evidence.

Good luck! ...You're going to need it.

[Steersman]

... Men's Rights? As in, the Men's Rights Movement? Or Men's Rights Activists? NO FUCKING WAY. I'll give you four reasons why.

Uh, did you yourself not say:

The few isolated good points that MRAs have are indeed good points …

Wouldn’t care to elucidate precisely which ones you think are in fact “good points”?

And, as a point of information and relative to the SPLC, apart from their highly questionable conclusions, one of the sites they claim is peddling misogynism is A Voice for Men where I’ve been banned for defending feminism. Rather difficult then to tar me with that particular brush, even assuming that all of their arguments are null and void - maybe they happen to champion several of those "good points" you refer to.

Steersman is familiar to me and as I recall, he is not an honest interlocutor.

And you would have evidence of me being caught in a lie? Or you have some way of reading my mind? Do tell.

[Steersman]

Tue Aug 28, 2012 4:56 am

Read some feminist theory. Educate yourself instead of relying on easy "fallacies" to throw out considerable scholarly research.

This is literally what I say every time this issue comes up. I'm getting tired of people asserting to me that feminism is a woman-only form of social activism because it only focuses on women ... .... As already laid out in previous posts, gender stereotypes and discrimination stems from a patriarchal, sexist framework that our society operates in.

And as I have already argued and will subsequently argue, that "gender stereotypes and discrimination" looks like dogma, articles of faith. Or maybe you can point me to the hard science, the hard facts that prove that that is the case.

Absent that evidence I would say all you have is pseudoscience at best – like communism and Freudian psychology that are simply not “falsifiable” – and another religion at worst.

Here's to hoping no one asks you to read it aloud to them as well, lest you commit yet another fallacy.

“Arr-arr, arr-arr; able-ist insult, able-ist insult; Poly wants a cracker ....”

[Xanthë]

[meta]
If memory serves me, Steersman has been a regular poster at the slyme-pit since early this month, and has been a disruptive, thread derailing nuisance on various atheist or social justice related blogs such as Eric Macdonald’s (Choice in Dying), Ophelia Benson’s (B&W), PZ Myers’ (where he was banned for defending his outright sexism towards Sally), and David Futrelle’s (where his verbose, obtuse trolling got him relegated to the auto-moderation list). In none of the instances where I could cite his work would I describe him as an ‘honest interlocutor’ who argues in good faith, and his dismissal of Jadehawk’s comment on the first page of the thread shows his own dogmatic disdain for the entire academic topic that is under discussion on the grounds that the social sciences lack the same hard verifications found in the ‘hard’ sciences.

In short, Steersman is a troll, is engaged in trolling this thread, and other commenters would be well-advised to ignore his interjections. (If the Friends and Foes feature works, you can even block out his comments.)

[ceepolk]

"gender stereotypes and discrimination" looks like dogma

What are you attempting to say? Will you actually explain, with examples and/or quoted source? I haven't seen you actually pick out a particular detail and say, "this specific thing right here is what I'm talking about when I say feminism looks like dogma." I'd like you to do that, so I can see what it is you're actually trying to say. Because it doesn't really seem like you're saying anything, because you haven't given any specifics about your objections, so all of these words you've been typing are...well...

Kinda naked.

And it is this specific avoidance of explicated content that tipped me from "Not sure if troll" to "Yeah, troll."

[Steersman]

Tue Aug 28, 2012 4:48 am

Ok, these are excerpts from an essay about the history of Feminist Theory (with a focus on women's studies rather than sociology; for what that looks like in sociology, you really are going to have to read the stuff from the journals I linked) in relation to men and masculinities.

Thanks for taking the time and effort to provide something solid to chew on – though a minor quibble in passing at this point: would you have a link to that essay?

But generally quite interesting and food for thought and seems to present some credible perspectives. However, several salient and problematic points leapt out at me:

The most important accomplishment of 20th-century feminist theory is the concept of gender as a social construction; that is, the idea that masculinity and femininity are loosely defined, historically variable, and interrelated social ascriptions to persons with certain kinds of bodies ....

Now, while I will quite readily concede that it is quite likely true that gender is somewhat of a “social construction” – that “nurture” plays a very large role in defining gender – I think the factual evidence is also quite clear that “nature” – the genetics – also plays a significant role. In addition, that whole “gender as a social construction” – something that appears to be a central thread running through many of your quotes – seems rather much like a concept from postmodernism which is, I gather, anything but a slam-dunk. For instance, Steven Pinker in his How the Mind Works notes, with some apprehension, the following:

Many of us have been puzzled by the takeover of humanities departments by the doctrines of postmodernism, poststructuralism, and deconstruction, according to which objectivity is impossible, meaning is self-contradictory, and reality is socially constructed. The motives become clearer when we consider typical statements like “Human beings have constructed and used gender – human beings can deconstruct and stop using gender”, and “The heterosexual/homosexual binary is not in nature, but is socially constructed, and therefore deconstructable”. [pg 57]

The problematic nature of which is emphasized by the Sokal Affair and the resulting book, Fashionable Nonsense (Postmodern Intellectual’s Abuse of Science), a salient quote from the article on it being this:

Sokal and Bricmont [the book’s authors] claim that they do not intend to analyze postmodernist thought in general. Rather, they aim to draw attention to the abuse of concepts from mathematics and physics, subjects they've devoted their careers to studying and teaching. Sokal and Bricmont define abuse of mathematics and physics as ...

Now, I certainly don’t know enough about all of the nuances of those philosophies and perspectives to say exactly where the truth lies. But it seems to me that any reasonable skeptic is going to take a look at that controversy, as well as the questionable nature of many of the facts and theories advanced, and think “gender as a social construction” is at best simply a hypothesis and at worst an "abuse of mathematics and physics" and the scientific method as well as being in consequence outright dogma.

Thus men and masculinity play a crucial role in feminist theory, the body of thought that seeks to understand women’s social situation and to articulate justice from a woman-centered perspective.

Well, that is all fine and dandy. Or would be if everyone actually had a “woman-centered perspective”. But – apart from the highly problematic implications there that we’re all women, some more damaged by testosterone than others – as that perspective seems to be the hypothesis or conjecture to be proven, asserting its truth a priori tends to qualify as another article of faith – i.e. dogma.