Feminism something something... Anyway we need more of it

[Kolantero]

it's not really obvious. as for an assumption of legitimacy: uh, no. i read "anti-feminist" and assume an intention to undo all egalitarian progress regarding sex and gender. that means reducing women to the status of chattels. you can have whatever secret gender politics you want in your brains, but all we see is the overt manifestations, which are not consistent with even 19th century concepts of women's liberation.

In order for the above to have any credibility, we would have to accept feminism both as objectively correct (regarding its view(s) of gender (in)equality) and as the only correct ideology of that field. That notion is objectively false, since feminism is clearly ideologically marked by being gynocentric, something very easy to see in its name and most basic definitions (and I doubt even most feminists would deny it) with the excuse that female is the "wronged" gender. Therefore regardless of whatever you or I or anyone believe about feminist, its views are definitely not objectively correct.

It's not my fault if you consider your own objectively subjective views as objectively right.

[emberling]

Wow. Gynocentrism proves objective falseness? I don't think it works that way. At most, it proves lack of complete purity of objectivity. But that's true for every study performed by humans ever. If I'm biased towards 2+2=4 it does not make 2+2 stop equaling 4.

"We have to accept feminism as the only correct ideology of that field" spuriously assumes that feminism is a single, monolithic ideology.

And, you know, since all they really have in common is that they accept the truth of the statement "The patriarchy exists"... what you're doing, and claiming is truth from an objective and logical perspective, is the equivalent of saying "We would have to accept evolution both as objectively correct regarding its views of speciation, and as the only correct ideology in the field of biology."

Now, I'm not claiming that the evidence for the truth of the patriarchy is equivalent to the evidence in favor of evolution (I have no idea how that comparison could be made fairly but both have a wealth of evidence and a wealth of deniers), but your claim seems to be that an academic field cannot accept such a theory as axiomatic without being objectively wrong. And that's just objectively wrong.

[Mlle. Zabzie]

In order for the above to have any credibility, we would have to accept feminism both as objectively correct (regarding its view(s) of gender (in)equality) and as the only correct ideology of that field. That notion is objectively false, since feminism is clearly ideologically marked by being gynocentric, something very easy to see in its name and most basic definitions (and I doubt even most feminists would deny it) with the excuse that female is the "wronged" gender. Therefore regardless of whatever you or I or anyone believe about feminist, its views are definitely not objectively correct.

It's not my fault if you consider your own objectively subjective views as objectively right.

I'm not sure why I'm engaging, but I'm completely baffled by this set of comments.

By arguing that solo's statement is only credible if you take as a given that feminism is correct, you haven't in the least bit refuted his assertion that the ideology you [may] be trying to propose is anything other than "an intention to undo all egalitarian progress regarding sex and gender." In fact, the negative implication of this statement is exactly the opposite. I read your first sentence as, in fact, arguing that there are many theories of gender relations, including those that aren't "feminist" (fair enough). Without specification, it must be that one of these theories you are proposing in opposition must be that women are not equal in any way to men and that the last 3 centuries of (what I believe is) progress in women's rights is invalid.

[Kolantero]

Wow. Gynocentrism proves objective falseness? I don't think it works that way.

I never said that. What I said was that gynocentrism proves that feminism is not objectively true. Which is pretty much what you say with...

At most, it proves lack of complete purity of objectivity.

So you are actually agreeing with me

But that's true for every study performed by humans ever.

So again you agree with me, if that is true for everything, it is true for feminism as well.

If I'm biased towards 2+2=4 it does not make 2+2 stop equaling 4.

I don't have to prove that feminism isn't objectively correct. Unless you can prove that feminism (and its gynocentricism) is as objectively correct as 2+2=4, this example strengthens my point.

"We have to accept feminism as the only correct ideology of that field" spuriously assumes that feminism is a single, monolithic ideology.

Or I am using a characteristic spread over every single strand of feminism, such as gynocentricism (easily seen in the most basic definitions which apply to all feminist strands - sometimes with some variations but always gynocentric)

And, you know, since all they really have in common is that they accept the truth of the statement "The patriarchy exists"...

Nope, they also have gynocentricism as a common characteristic. So unless it can be objectively proven that gender (in)equalities can be examined correctly only through gynocentricistic approaches, feminism cannot be considered objectively valid.

[Sci-2]

I think his point is that while motivations for any study may be touched with bias, it doesn't therefore mean the results are biased.

Your point, if I understand it, is an attempt to claim that any study conducted by feminists must veer from the third person objective reality?

[Kolantero]

I'm not sure why I'm engaging,

Well, I hope you are not expecting me to answer that

By arguing that solo's statement is only credible if you take as a given that feminism is correct, you haven't in the least bit refuted his assertion that the ideology you [may] be trying to propose is anything other than "an intention to undo all egalitarian progress regarding sex and gender."

That's because, in the context of my argument with him I don't have to refute anything to be correct, I only have to show that feminism is not objectively correct.

- If feminism is objectively correct as an ideology for gender equality then an anti-feminist is objectively and necessarily against gender equality.

- If feminism is not objectively correct then an anti-feminist can be anything from a misogynist to a proponent of gender equality who disagrees with feminism

The latter means that sologdin's assertion (inferring that by being an anti-feminist I am necessarily against whatever progress there was in women's right in the last century) is wrong.

Needless to say someone who is anti-[X] doesn't necessarily means that he is against every single thing supported by [X]

In fact, the negative implication of this statement is exactly the opposite. I read your first sentence as, in fact, arguing that there are many theories of gender relations, including those that aren't "feminist" (fair enough).

Yes

Without specification, it must be that one of these theories you are proposing in opposition must be that women are not equal in any way to men and that the last 3 centuries of (what I believe is) progress in women's rights is invalid.

Maybe I misunderstood something but I honestly don't have a clue how you jumped from the underlined part of that sentence to the bolded part. Just because I haven't specified something, it doesn't mean that you can interpret it in any way you want.

[Kolantero]

I think his point is that while motivations for any study may be touched with bias, it doesn't therefore mean the results are biased.

Your point, if I understand it, is an attempt to claim that any study conducted by feminists must veer from the third person objective reality?

I wasn't really talking about studies but for the ideology itself. All I'm claiming is that:

- feminism is gynocentric

- a gynocentric approach to gender issues is not objectively correct or "neutral", regardless of what anyone believes on the subject

- therefore feminism cannot be an objectively correct ideology regarding the approaches to gender issues. Rather, whether feminism is correct is a matter of opinion

[Sci-2]

I don't even understand what you mean by objective in this case.

Can you give some examples? Because right now when you [say] objective I'm thinking of something metaphysical, like Platonic Ideals of Justice and such.

[emberling]

proven not objectively true is synonymous with objectively false. it is entirely different from not purely unbiased. attempting to claim otherwise is proof of intellectual dishonesty.

Feminism that focuses on male discrimination against men who exhibit feminine-coded behavior is not remotely gynocentric. It is my understanding that, while second-wave feminism was horribly gynocentric, most of modern feminism has rejected that view and aims for the larger picture, though [to what degree] is a bit contentious.

unless it can be objectively proven that gender (in)equalities can be examined correctly only through gynocentricistic approaches, feminism cannot be considered objectively valid.

This does not follow. It must only be true that gender (in)equalities can be examined correctly through feminist approaches. Whether they could be examined correctly through some other approach is irrelevant unless you're the poor guy who came up with that approach and couldn't get anyone to listen to him. If that's you, you should probably share your fucking approach instead of just bitching about the other one.

Though I do agree with you that anti-feminist does not require (it merely suggests) that you are against all progress made by all feminists. It only requires that you are against modern feminists (implying e.g. support for the new Texas abortion law, opposition to Lily Ledbetter etc.) I would hate to think that my anti-Republican stance made me an ardent foe of Abraham Lincoln.

[Mlle. Zabzie]

I don't even understand what you mean by objective in this case.

Can you give some examples? Because right now when you [say] objective I'm thinking of something metaphysical, like Platonic Ideals of Justice and such.

Thanks - I'm having the same confusion. The use of "subjective" and "objective" seems to wander here.

[Kolantero]

I don't even understand what you mean by objective in this case.

Can you give some examples? Because right now when you [say] objective I'm thinking of something metaphysical, like Platonic Ideals of Justice and such.

The most simple example can be seen in the name of the ideology. FEMinism for example very obviously derives from "female" and it shows (or put more correctly it is the result of) the gynocentricism and the bias of the ideology.

Now an objective term would be I don't know Equalism or something. The word "equalism" doesn't show any preference to either gender.

[Kolantero]

proven not objectively true is synonymous with objectively false. it is entirely different from not purely unbiased. attempting to claim otherwise is proof of intellectual dishonesty.

Playing with words is "proof of intellectual dishonesty." What I said ("proves that feminism is not objectively true") means proving that feminism is not an objective truth or objectively correct, not that it is "proven objectively false"

Feminism that focuses on male discrimination against men who exhibit feminine-coded behavior is not remotely gynocentric. It is my understanding that, while second-wave feminism was horribly gynocentric, most of modern feminism has rejected that view and aims for the larger picture, though [to what degree] is a bit contentious.

Examining male discrimination through an ideology where gynocentry is embedded even in the most basic of definitions is still gynocentric.

This does not follow. It must only be true that gender (in)equalities can be examined correctly through feminist approaches. Whether they could be examined correctly through some other approach is irrelevant unless you're the poor guy who came up with that approach and couldn't get anyone to listen to him. If that's you, you should probably share your fucking approach instead of just bitching about the other one.

Nah I'll keep bitching about it. As for my approach , well I guess i consider gender issues regardless of gender. I doubt I am the first who thought that.

[Mlle. Zabzie]

Not to be trite, but I really feel like quoting Shakespeare here:

"What’s in a name? that which we call a rose By any other name would smell as sweet; Romeo would, were he not Romeo call’d, Retain that dear perfection which he owes Without that title."

[Seli]

I find it grimly amusing that Tor would suggest it isn't, y'know, their fault less than a month after one of their most senior editors was outed as a serial harasser on a dozen different sci-fi blogs. I suppose that's more savvy than artlessly closing ranks around one of their bloggers and con organizers over the same thing. Sure, it's only a couple of public examples, but when folks suggest a systemic bias and then you see those examples on both ends of the chain, it tends to lend some weight to the suggestion. Thanks for the link, karaddin.

Different companies for all intents and purposes. The post was from the UK label, the editor was from the US one, both are owned by the same group.

The post was interesting, but flawed as well. But I belief the links Aiofe posted explain that well enough. One of the big ones is that it does not examine why women are submitting less, another why women end up in the genres they do. And I belief it completely ignores the agented pathway.

eta: the podcast that was linked to treats the post in their first segment, nice discussion on there as always.

[thistlepong]

Mlle. Zabzie, it's no more, and probably substantially less, trite than Kolantero's response to emberling.

[TheLoneliestMonk]

Any examples of successful civil rights movements that did not focus on the group that was discriminated against?

[Kolantero]

So gender discrimination is only done against women? Well, that's new. Or rather old, like from the 1970's or something

[emberling]

So there's two definitions of objective in play here.

One means, essentially, free of bias - for example, "an objective opinion".

The other means something close to real; empirically proven or provable - for example, "an objective fact".

You are taking the word to mean both of these at the same time. This is an intellectually dishonest troll tactic.

Say the NRA sponsors and releases a study about gun violence. Sure, we all know that it's going to show that guns are great and we all should have one. If it didn't, they wouldn't release it. And a lot of people are just going to assume it's bunk because of the source. But that's not how to find the truth. Anyone who's interested in intellectual honesty is going to look at that study and find the specific reasons why it may not represent the objective truth. Find the specific procedures and assumptions that show bias by the researchers. Demonstrate the flaws in the study. And if there aren't any, well, that says something.

The NRA is known to be not objective (biased), but that does not in itself prove that their claims are not objectively true. What's required for that is - gasp - addressing the claims.

I'm not sure you're even capable of addressing feminist claims because from all I've seen you just get stuck on the name and how much it hurts your so-manly fee-fees, and never get far enough to actually read the claim.

[thistlepong]

Different companies for all intents and purposes. The post was from the UK label, the editor was from the US one, both are owned by the same group.

Harumph. The editor was technically in the employ of the parent rather than Tor. In any case, I reserve the right to wry, bitter, inappropriate amusement.

[emberling]

So gender discrimination is only done against women? Well, that's new. Or rather old, like from the 1970's or something

It's only done in a patriarchal context - that is, a context reflecting a greater society wherein maleness, masculinity, and/or masculine-coded behavior is valued above femaleness etc., and/or masculinity etc. and femininity etc. are viewed as monolithic opposed binaries rather than multifaceted complementary spectrums.