quote:
for instance, certain camps reject methodological naturalism, because it was devised by a chauvenist. they reject particle and quantum physics because there aren't enough women in the field.
Sure. And on the odd occassion, you'll find someone waxing lyrical about the mysticism of the moon. But thats exactly why I raise the question - why is it legitimate to criticise feminism en bloc in a manner which would not be legitimate in any other sphere?
It seems to me that much of this criticism is misogynistic; it is the application of collective punishment. All feminist arguments must be dismissed because of a few nutters who have arrogated to themselves the term feminist.
quote:
we scorn creationists when they do things equally as stupid, and say things to the extent of personal beliefs being immaterial. but when we scorn feminist authors for doing the same thing -- asserting that personal biases are more important -- we get accused of being hate mongers.
Thats an appeal for pity. It does not happen when you criticise AUTHORS. It does apply when the error of one individual is used as a bat to beat other individuals, even though they were not complicit in the original error.
quote:
it's also because, not to sound to overly chauvinistic, there really is no pleasing an academic feminist. the entire subject is devoted to "problematizing" thing. inequalities always seem to favor men, whichever way they go
I say thats an appeal to the irrational female stereotype.
Now I will say that I am broadly critical of the "academic" post-modern strand, and as I see it it carries all the problems of post-modernism, including the uncritical acceptance of the consumerist argument to the application of social leverage. So I agree that quite a lot of this strand of analysis is, IMO, counterproductive - and thus we end up with absurdities such as lipstick being retailed as a feminist product because it makes you look good/feel good.
But I disagree with you that there is a great deal of problematising; that is only to argue your own conclusion. If someone argues that practice X is symptomatic of oppression, you need to engage with their analysis, not just dismiss it as creating problems were none exist. As I shall now show:
quote:
in the english language, the gender neutral case is male by default. so when we don't know a person's gender, or we're talking about people in general we say he, him, his, etc. this is unfair to women, of course. but make it she, her and hers, and it's robbing women of their gender identity. the only solution is mangle the language: turn everything into the plural even when it's singular, or do the tacky his/hers thing. (i'm using "it" from now on, and if it makes you feel like an object, don't blame me)
The English language is not some objectively external phenomenon over which we have no control; it is a tool at our disposal.
Your argument is prima facie contradictory: first you acnkowledge that by default we use "him" to refer to "her", but then object to the use of "it" because it denies female gender identity. Well, so does the generic use of "he"; so this offers no solution and no objection to a proposed solution.
Second, its unlikely that any change would in practice rob anyone of their gender identity, as its embedded so often: geder-specific names, and titles, make it nearly impossible to talk about anyone without conveying their gender, even if using a generic pronoun.
Third, the allegation that this is a "mangling" of the language is contestable. As I understand it, the deliberate and formal adoption of the MALE specific pronoun as the generic pronoun only occurred in the C18th, 1783 IIRC. Certainly, if you read English Napoleonic-era naval dipsatches, as I have done, they DO use the plural pronoun for the generic pronoun; there is a good case to be made that the use of the male pronoun is in fact "mangling the language".
Thus, the allegation that feminism "problematises" issues that do not exist, and propose "silly" solutions like changing the language, is falsified: because the Feminist position is only to reverse a change to an older form of English which, they argue, is eliminates some of the misogyny in the current version.
And as THAT shows, the argument is much more solidly based than just "problematising" an issue by people who can "never be pleased". And both of those arguments seem to be an appeal to an implicit irrationality of feminism.
It seems to me that in fact it is those who oppose feminism who problematise unnecessarily, and can never be satisifed. There would be not much lost if we altered the lnaguage again to is pre- C.19th structure, and ceertainly society would not come crashging down. What do we have to lose by making this change and not subsuming 50% of our populace into the other 50%? So why the vehement resistance? Why the accusations of "problematising"?
This message has been edited by contracycle, 09-24-2004 10:07 AM
™ Version 4.2
