Feminism - a skeptical approach

#61

Rebecca West was a liberal feminist when she said "I myself have never been able to find out precisely what feminism is: I only know that people call me a feminist whenever I express sentiments that differentiate me from a doormat." She did become involved in radical feminist ideas and patriarchy, etc. But for a radical feminist to use this quote to represent what orthodox feminism is today is hight disingenuous.

And it is about power. Power is the right word, along with influence, respect, etc.

#62

DGS wrote:Rebecca West was a liberal feminist when she said "I myself have never been able to find out precisely what feminism is: I only know that people call me a feminist whenever I express sentiments that differentiate me from a doormat." She did become involved in radical feminist ideas and patriarchy, etc. But for a radical feminist to use this quote to represent what orthodox feminism is today is hight disingenuous.

And it is about power. Power is the right word, along with influence, respect, etc.

Edward Gemmer on the main thread mentioned a positive role for gender feminism that seems distinct from the type of equality or egalitarian feminism that's been mentioned in this thread. He suggested that gender feminism can make positive contributions towards challenging entrenched gender roles in society.
How does this fit in with your idea of feminism?

#63

Looking at things from different perspectives is always useful. Having people discuss those perspectives. Subjectivism for instance. There has been unquestionably a male perspective bias historically n science - and a lot of sexist pseudo science informed by wishful thinking which is as old as Aristotle and his wandering womb. It was - and is crazy - for scientists to believe they can be completely objective. The only thing we van do is we aware and control for them. But it's also worth pointing out to feminists that it's precisely because of this that we developed the scientific method anyway - because humans were aware of their subjective biases. There is no need for a subjective method (which is what feminists have tried to develop) because that's the default anyway.

Also, the scientific method is self correcting and it has self corrected. Now you won't get anyone claiming 100% objectivity, but they still searching for truths. Feminist epistemology is just challenging that method. Science has self corrected and moved on. Feminism is still taking about biological determinism (BD), like a stuck record, even though it doesn't exist.

Also social constructionism. Humans do shape their environments in a way that other animals can't. The do 'construct' political systems - some more fair than others. That isn't the same as saying biology doesn't also have an influence. But because feminism subsume the terms biology and evolutionary to mean biological determinism, and because biological determinism is an agent of patriarchy (love all these vague yet axiomatic concept within feminism) it has to make a stand against it. These elements make up the central dogma of orthodox feminism today. These ideas are peoples legacies and the baby boomers won't let go of them. Even though they're wrong. A ev. psych prof said to me recently, 'Funeral by funeral, social science progresses'.

Perspectives are all okay as long as one maintains an open mind. Gender/orthodox feminism doesn't have this - though there are feminists who do, they just can't come out and say it and remain in the sisterhood. To them I'd say, come on in, the water's fine! :D

For me it comes down to this question: Does feminism serve women or do women serve feminism? (here http://dispatchesfromtheclaphamomnibus. ... e-name.htm

ps - how do you embed a link?

pps - can't keep up with the other thread and keep on top of my work here sorry.

#64

A very good paper on this here - don't be put off by the fact that it comes from a gender studies dept. Vandermassen is a top class rationalist and scholar http://ejw.sagepub.com/content/11/1/9.full.pdf+html

She also wrote this - http://www.amazon.com/Whos-Afraid-Charl ... 074254351X

#65

Have been asked to contribute to this thread on FB https://www.facebook.com/hnagendra/post ... tif_t=like

#66

Giving feminism a bad name http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/evo ... m-bad-name

#67

For those of you who live close to the Toronto area, Daphne Patai, author of "Professing Feminism: Education and Indoctrination in Women's Studies" is coming to give an interesting talk in a few days:

http://wx.toronto.ca/festevents.nsf/591 ... enDocument

Whatâ€™s Wrong With Womenâ€™s Studies? Academic Feminism, Censorship & Men

In Professing Feminism: Education and Indoctrination in Womenâ€™s Studies, Daphne Patai and Noretta Koertge present research showing how womenâ€™s studies has come to serve a political agenda, leading to deep problems: dubious scholarship, indoctrination, and the alienation of supporters.

Dr. Janice Fiamengo, U of Ottawa English Professor, discusses the problems of academic feminism at Canadian universities: dubious scholarship, indoctrination, dogmatic teaching approaches, limitations on free speech, effects of â€œequity hiring,â€ and the consequences for men in the humanities.

I wish I could attend that, but I'm too far away. Scented Nectar? You're from Toronto, right?

#68

I can't go, but it sounds good. I hope someone makes a video of it for youtube.

#69

Stretchycheese wrote:For those of you who live close to the Toronto area, Daphne Patai, author of "Professing Feminism: Education and Indoctrination in Women's Studies" is coming to give an interesting talk in a few days:

http://wx.toronto.ca/festevents.nsf/591 ... enDocument

Whatâ€™s Wrong With Womenâ€™s Studies? Academic Feminism, Censorship & Men

In Professing Feminism: Education and Indoctrination in Womenâ€™s Studies, Daphne Patai and Noretta Koertge present research showing how womenâ€™s studies has come to serve a political agenda, leading to deep problems: dubious scholarship, indoctrination, and the alienation of supporters.

Dr. Janice Fiamengo, U of Ottawa English Professor, discusses the problems of academic feminism at Canadian universities: dubious scholarship, indoctrination, dogmatic teaching approaches, limitations on free speech, effects of â€œequity hiring,â€ and the consequences for men in the humanities.
They've updated the location recently:
http://equalitycanada.com/2013/02/25/up ... rship-men/

I wish I could attend that, but I'm too far away. Scented Nectar? You're from Toronto, right?

#70

Oops, the last few sentences should be outside the quotes in my previous post.

Anyways, I came across an interesting post by Ophelia where she mentions Daphne Patai:

http://freethoughtblogs.com/butterflies ... e-calling/

Iâ€™ve been on the Womenâ€™s Studies mailing list for several years and I know very well that there are a lot of different kinds of feminist and some of them are programatically anti-rational. I know that an awful lot of irrational bullshit has been absorbed into feminism, especially (ironically) the academic wing of it. Iâ€™ve had huge arguments over it on the list, and Iâ€™ve seen my friend Daphne Patai put on a special list there so that her contributions are held for approval instead of being posted immediately. There is ideological policing there all right.

Now this is interesting, coming from Ophelia, given that she has demonstrated same ideological policing she talks about. After Daphne gives her talk in Toronto in a few days, I'm wondering if her "friend Daphne" will eventually be added to her growing list of ex-friends.

#71

Correction. I looks like Daphne Patai herself won't be there, just English professor Janice Fiamengo, who I assume will talk about Daphne's book to some extent. Should be an interesting talk, just the same. I also heard that they're going to make a video of the event too and there's a possiblity of militant radfems protesting the event. Wish I could be there!

#72

Stretchycheese wrote:Correction. I looks like Daphne Patai herself won't be there, just English professor Janice Fiamengo, who I assume will talk about Daphne's book to some extent. Should be an interesting talk, just the same. I also heard that they're going to make a video of the event too and there's a possiblity of militant radfems protesting the event. Wish I could be there!

Contact that media department and get them on the case!

#73

Crap. I posted this on the rape thread by accident

http://aninepoundhammer.files.wordpress ... =387&h=255

#74

[youtube]QJeX6F-Q63I[/youtube]

#75

I finally got Professing Feminism: Education and Indoctrination in Women's Studies by Patai and Koertge through an interlibrary loan.

It's quite a good read so far and I highly recommend it. The dogmas and behaviours we're seeing from FTB are often eerily similar to what's been happening in Women Studies programs. Ideological policing, political correctness conformity, maliciously smearing dissenters, shutting down of free inquiry, seeking power by contantly trying to appear the victim, appeals to outrage and emotion rather than logic and reason, assuming the worst possible intentions from those who disagree, and other things.

Throughout the book, just replace "Women's Studies program" with "FTB/Skepchick/A+ (FSA+) crowd" and you find an uncanny resemblance. If you want to a better understanding of their mindset, the book explains it quite well. I'd be curious to know how many people from the FSA+ crowd were enrolled in Women's Studies courses to see how much indoctrination has took place. Unfortunately, they've had much success in passing along that indoctrination to a good portion of the skeptics' community to gain converts. However, free inquiry and dogmatic ideological feminism don't sit well together, and therefore they've been unsuccessful at gaining a dominant position.

#76

All the hysteria on FTB's and with A+ seems more and more like orthodox feminisms death throes

#77

DGS wrote:All the hysteria on FTB's and with A+ seems more and more like orthodox feminisms death throes

I guess that would depend how you define "orthodox", but taking into account things like this

[youtube]GjgBfklmYj8[/youtube]

I highly doubt we are watching feminism's death throes.

#78

Finally a place where I can discuss feminism freely!

Hello I'm new by the way :)

#79

Hello :)

#80

Hello yourself :)

I got tired of AVFM so I decided to check this site out. Like it so far. It seems very neutral and free.

#81

Welcome, TheSandreGuy!

The 'pit is fairly neutral, we have MRAs, feminists, everything in between, and probably ideas that don't even have a name yet.
Pull up a chair and join the conversation.

#82

Ok, nice.

Basicly I have questioned feminism since about 7 years back. And I stopped calling myself a feminist 1Â½ years ago. I mainly just stuck to the title for the same reason a person who has lost faith still claims to the title theist, I wanted to be part of a group.

I realized that the entire idea of the "patriarchy" rests on the presumption that women are either too stupid or too weak-minded to think for themselves. So it wasn't really because of feminist misandry I stopped subscribing to feminism, but because of feminist misogyny. Oh the irony.

#83

TheSandreGuy wrote:Ok, nice.

Basicly I have questioned feminism since about 7 years back. And I stopped calling myself a feminist 1Â½ years ago. I mainly just stuck to the title for the same reason a person who has lost faith still claims to the title theist, I wanted to be part of a group.

I realized that the entire idea of the "patriarchy" rests on the presumption that women are either too stupid or too weak-minded to think for themselves. So it wasn't really because of feminist misandry I stopped subscribing to feminism, but because of feminist misogyny. Oh the irony.

One of the reasons I dropped the feminist label was the mean girls aspect I saw coming from the other women who assigned that label to themselves. For all the annoyances of the male feminists and their benevolent sexism, I was always very embarassed by much of the behavior and rhetoric of the other women in feminism. It was almost like high school all over again, except the cliques were political in nature. When I began to openly question feminism because of this sort of behavior I constantly got the No True Scotsman fallacy in response. I just can't take it seriously anymore, even if I do know some good and honest egalitarian minded people who still hold onto the label. If they want to be the active element of change within the movement, more power to the. I'll just call myself egalitarian, humanist, whatever and move on. The end goal is more important than the name and I'll judge each person on their behavior and rhetoric, regardless of the labels they adopt. Feminism can rot and die for all I care.

#84

Interesting, yes I have noticed much the same behavior myself.

I was politically active for about 18 months in a political youth party here in Sweden. Radical-feminists had invaded the place to such a degree that I couldn't even mention some thing like, how the legal system convicts ten times more men than women on the same basis of evidence, and how women get sentenced much lighter than men, without being called a misogynist.

My point however is that they were opposed to what they call "slut-shaming" (in reality men are also shamed for being promiscuous, but you never hear about that from femitards) but I kid you not, they called women who weren't feminists "sluts" because they weren't part of the movement. I mean WTF?

#85

TheSandreGuy wrote:Interesting, yes I have noticed much the same behavior myself.

I was politically active for about 18 months in a political youth party here in Sweden. Radical-feminists had invaded the place to such a degree that I couldn't even mention some thing like, how the legal system convicts ten times more men than women on the same basis of evidence, and how women get sentenced much lighter than men, without being called a misogynist.

My point however is that they were opposed to what they call "slut-shaming" (in reality men are also shamed for being promiscuous, but you never hear about that from femitards) but I kid you not, they called women who weren't feminists "sluts" because they weren't part of the movement. I mean WTF?

I saw a translated version of the Swedish documentary "Gender War" or "KÃ¶nskriget" on youtube:

Have you seen it? Are the radfems really that crazy and dogmatic over there?

#86

Yes, I've seen it. The fact that this organisation has such ties to the governmental forces scares the crap out of me.

Yes, they are that dogmatic, but not always as easy to spot. In SSU (Socialdemokraterna UngdomsfÃ¶rbund = The Social Democratic Youth Party) they were mostly dressed like normal people, and weren't as openly hostile.

#87

Here's another great quote from Patai and Koertge's Professing Feminism. (sorry I keep bring the book up, but it's really an awesome book!! :)

Page 78:

"Any undertaking involving the wholesale substitution of group norms for individual experiences, feelings, and ideas ought to be suspect. But doctrinaire feminism is particularly worrisome because it blocks the individual's ability to evaluate fairly and reasonably the causes of an remidies for her own personal unhappiness or lack of fulfillment. There are many barriers to a satisfactory life - some surmountable, others not. But the one thing all of can aspire to is self-knowledge, along with some understanding of the constraints placed on us by our situation and of reasonable, along with some understanding of the constraints placed on us by our situation and of reasonable prospects for overcoming them. Feminist indoctrination inhibits women's ability to reach for this objective.
Feminism begins with the promise of liberating women from the distortions of gender under patriarchy. Unfortunately, however, contemporary feminism also fits women with blinders that keep them from seeing the varied possibilities present in their individual lives."

I thought this was a powerful quote and should be mandatory reading for the people who advocate putting up "I need feminism" photos of themselves. The quote touches on what I've said earlier, about radfem dogmatism bringing a gynocentric outlook of the world, or the wearing "gender goggles" when looking at every social problem to the exclusion of other factors and nuances. Not only is radfem ideology harmful to human relations, but is ultimately harmful to the very person holding the radfem ideology!

#88

Seems like a good book.

JTM · #89

I apologize in advance for both only skimming part of the thread and for repeating in my own words what others have (partially) said.

My short answer to the question of whether skepticism can be applied to feminism is "yes" followed quickly by a rather nervous "but it depends on what you mean by 'feminism'." At least, that's my excuse for what I'll write next.

I don't use the R.West definition of "feminism" because, by my reading, it doesn't say anything. That women are people is either too obvious to need saying (as in: women are humans) or so ill-defined as to be anything you want it to be and, therefore, nothing. My own definition is this: "feminism is the belief that sex should be ignored when it is irrelevant" (where "sex" here denotes part of a phenotype, as opposed to what is called "sweaty snuggle-bunnies" in my home). This comes from my definition of sexism: "taking sex into account when it is irrelevant." In other words, I simple use "feminism" to mean "don't be sexist." If you think that I have just changed the subject completely, then I'll admit that maybe I have and apologize right now for doing so, but that's how I come at all this.

The real work, therefore - and this is where skepticism comes in - is in figuring out for which things (whether they be behaviors or whatever) is the sex of the person relevant. And that's not at all easy, mostly because there is so little good data. But the default approach of skepticism - to assume the null until it can be rejected with some level of confidence - would be, for me, the best approach. You don't assume, for example, that the sex of the person is relevant unless and until there is evidence that it does matter. And it needs to be "clean" data, please, by which I mean that confounds are either eliminated or controlled for (e.g., by some form of covariate analysis). And that's why it's not easy. So much of the data being cited by both sides on any particular issue is so filled with confounds that I can't, with my I-teach-scientific-method hat on, take any of it as being very useful at all.

In fact, the only situations not involving sweaty snuggle-bunnies where sex appears (to me) to be demonstrably relevant are early child-rearing (as I'm convinced by the evidence in favor of breast-feeding, although I'll immediately add that breast-pumps have made even this almost moot in most Western countries) and the design of public bathrooms.

Oh, and Hi everybody. I found this site via Mykeru's vids.

- JTM

#90

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/pop ... ender-gaps

#91

I need a copy of Professing Feminism really badly - can't get one on my bloody Sony Reader because I'm in New Zealand. ARGH.

Sandre: Most convo happens in the Periodic Table of Swearing (as a note)! Also, welcome

DGS: I lolled

#92

Rayshul, I got mine from an interlibrary loan. Perhaps one of the university libraries in NZ has it?

#93

"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."

Of course it can. Anti-porn feminists have made a very specific claim: porn incites men to rape. They must substantiate that claim with: 1) a model describing the porn -> rape process, consistent with our current understanding of psychology & behavior; 2) observations conducted to find evidence that increased access to porn correlates with increased incidences of rape. As they have done neither (and the only study I saw found a 10% drop in sexual violence following greater access to porn), we can reject their hypothesis until further notice.

On the other hand, there is no way to determine whether the extra-terrestrials who violated Andrea Dworkin were inspired by porn from another planet.

#94

Here's another book by Daphne Patai that's interesting and relevant in addressing the FSA+ crowd: "Heterophobia: Sexual Harassment and the Future of Feminism"

From the Amazon review:

With a lot more restraint, if also a lot less style, than Katie Roiphe or Camille Paglia, Patai argues that the proliferation of sexual harassment lawsuits, particularly in academia, is bad for feminism. She blames feminist ideologues for creating a repressive?and sexually repressed?atmosphere in universities, and she forcefully documents cases in which faculty members (both men and women, though mostly men) have had their reputations and careers ruined by false allegations, frivolous complaints and opportunistic charges. Patai, a professor of women's studies and comparative literature at U. Mass-Amherst, calls herself a "still-avowed feminist" who rejects the presupposition of a rigidly patriarchal world in which men are innately predatory while women are inherently virtuous and potential victims. She criticizes the "sexual harassment industry" comprised of campus administrators, radical feminists and "post-trauma" therapists who continue to expand the definition of sexual harassment and habitually disregard due process. Not surprisingly, she singles out Catharine MacKinnon, Andrea Dworkin and Mary Daly as "notorious heterophobes," slamming their "pathological aversion to men...and antipathy to heterosexuality." While her basic arguments?that women are not protected but infantilized by such zeal and that we neither can nor should try to expunge sexuality from the fabric of everyday life?have been articulated by others, Patai brings common sense and muscular reason to the task. Though focused on academia, her outspoken study should be required reading for the workplace.

From the the wiki on Daphne Patai:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daphne_Patai

Among Patai's concerns are what she sees as draconian sexual harassment regulations as implemented in the academic world. She argues that contemporary feminism is poisoned by a strong element of hostility to sexual interaction between men and women and an effort to suppress it through micromanagement of everyday relations. This idea is developed in her 1998 book Heterophobia: Sexual Harassment and the Future of Feminism.

(bolded parts mine) Sound familiar? Perhaps I'll add this book to my reading list too.

#95

Interesting article:

The origins of our gender roles

Alison Booth sees how the relative bargaining power of men and women has evolved.

http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinio ... 57103.html

However, I'm a bit skeptical about these generalisations on the effects of different types of agriculture:

What happened to relative bargaining between males and females with the introduction of agricultural cultivation? The bargaining power of women was to weaken. Why was this the case? Danish economist Ester Boserup (1970) distinguished between two forms of soil cultivation to prepare the ground for planting in her book, Woman's Role in Economic Development.

The first form is the labour-intensive shifting cultivation, which uses hand-held devices such as the hoe and the digging stick. The second form is the more capital-intensive plough cultivation, which requires upper-body strength to control the plough. Consequently, the latter form of cultivation gave men a comparative advantage relative to women and led to a division of labour in which men worked in the fields while women specialised in work in and around the home. This gender-based division of labour then gave rise to a culture which codified women's place as being in the home.

Testable predictions of this theory are that cultures based on plough cultivation are characterised by less equal beliefs about gender roles. Some recent economic studies empirically test the hypothesis that different agricultural practices influenced the historical gender division of labour, and that they also contributed to the evolution and persistence of gender norms.

One example is the 2012 paper "On the Origins of Gender Roles: Women and the Plough" by Alesina, Giuliano and Nunn. The study shows that individuals, ethnicities and countries whose ancestors engaged in plough agriculture are characterised by greater gender inequality today, as well as by lower female participation in a range of activities outside the domestic sphere.

I haven't read that article yet, but I'm curious to see how they explain high female participation in some places that have a history of plough agriculture- for example:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c ... 09.svg.png
(rock carving of ploughing with oxen in Bronze Age Sweden)

#96

Using this as a repository for some comments on feminism found outside the pit.

http://graunwatch.wordpress.com/2012/05 ... ad-church/:

One of the most common reactions to my criticisms of feminism in recent years has been along the lines of: â€˜feminism is a broad church, there are many different perspectives within it. Donâ€™t taint us all with the same brush!â€™

It is in my view, a way of trying to stamp on dissent. To pull the rug from under any serious challenge to the dogma. And often it works.

http://freethoughtblogs.com/lousycanuck ... s-awesome/
I switched these 2 lines to capture his thesis:

Asking â€œis feminism skepticalâ€ is ... to put it bluntly, bullshit. To put it less bluntly, it is a category error.

(looking for Lousy Canuck's recent post on OK tornado & Lindsay in which he says feminism IS skepticism - not finding it - did he take it down? Will go poking around)

#97

Richard Carrier, not Lousy, had the recent post I was thinking of: http://freethoughtblogs.com/carrier/archives/3626

But it's not the source of the line I was thinking of, instead this:

One thing Iâ€™d like to add to these critiques is his equally-ignorant treatment of Atheism+â€¦ Apparently he has never read (or at least paid much attention to) anything by Atheism+ advocates or listened to any of their podcasts or videos. Just as he evidently doesnâ€™t talk to feminists or bother to learn anything about feminism before lecturing to an audience of feminists about feminismâ€¦for example, he doesnâ€™t understand the difference between defining feminism, on which there is no disagreement among feminists, and deciding how to implement the goals of feminism, on which there is abundant disagreement and everyone knows it, whereas conflating the two is common among anti-feminists, a fact Lindsay seems quite unaware of, and thus he remains clueless as to why heâ€™s getting his head bitten off over repeating an anti-feminist trope.

#98

Lindsay apologises to Watson :doh:

Statement Re My May 18 Blog Post
May 23, 2013

The decision to issue the following statement is my own decision, and is not the result of any instruction or pressure, direct or indirect, from anyone, including, but not limited to members of the CFI board of directors.

To the extent anyone influenced this statement, it was my colleague and friend Debbie Goddard, with whom I had a productive conversation last night. However, I remain solely responsible both for the decision to issue this statement and for its contents.

In my blog post of May 18, I complained about Ms. Rebecca Watsonâ€™s characterization of my May 17 talk. In doing so, I expressed my points in intemperate language, e.g., the comparison of her blog post to a press communication from North Korea, and for that I unqualifiedly apologize. This apology has been conveyed to Ms. Watson.

To be clear, I still firmly believe Ms. Watsonâ€™s blog post mischaracterizes my talk, specifically by characterizing my abbreviated discussion of the phrase â€œshut up and listenâ€ as the â€œcruxâ€ of my talk.

As to my May 17 talk, I have nothing to say. The CFI board will decide whether my talk was contemptuous of women, as some have alleged, misrepresented CFIâ€™s commitment to womenâ€™s rights, or in some way committed CFI to a course of action inconsistent with CFIâ€™s mission.
Commenting is not available in this weblog entry.

#99

Continuing to use this thread as a repository of links/quotes & maybe ideas.

Still haven't found (in half-hearted searching) the post I knew I'd seen somewhere that claim "feminism IS skepticism, applied to" society, gender in society, stuff like that.

http://freethoughtblogs.com/lousycanuck ... s-awesome/
But this has some comments on feminism & skepticism, including:

Every damn conversation weâ€™ve had over the past several years in our respective atheist/skeptic communities that even approaches the topic of feminism, or discusses women in any way, seems to attract the sort of person in our communities who demands that we prove that feminism â€” the idea that women are human beings and should be treated with basic human dignity â€” is skeptical. Who evidently believes that the natural overlap between skepticism and feminism is insufficient for the topic to be broached. That the feminists in the skepticism community are not turning a skeptical eye to their dogmatically held beliefs that women shouldnâ€™t be systematically mistreated or disadvantaged by any social structure that we humans have built.

This is, to put it bluntly, bullshit. To put it less bluntly, it is a category error. ...

...Likewise, there are some feminists who come by their feminist ideals dogmatically, who advocate for social change that would not actually fix the disparities endemic in our system. There are some feminists who are feminists because they believe in egalitarianism and they see the pendulum swung too far toward patriarchy at the moment.

Idea for a blog post (except I don't have a blog, heh) on feminism within religion - can religious self-identified feminists "do feminism right" or even understand it in the right way (in the eyes of the FtB/etc definition/approach to feminism), approaching it as a skeptical viewpoint?

I know nothing of the literature in this area. Here's a lay person's place to start:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feminist_theology and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheist_feminism
From the latter (at the end of the page):

While atheist feminism considers religion to be innately oppressive to women,[27] religious feminism sees women's oppression in religion as caused by distortion or misinterpretation of the true and feminist teachings of religion, and religious feminists try to remove sexism from religion.[114][115] Such attempts include feminist theology, drawing attention to female deities, focusing on the important roles taken by women in religious life, and advocating for women's ordination.[116][117][118][119] Wicca, Neopaganism, worship of goddesses, and other forms of feminine-based spirituality have also been associated with religious feminism, as have devotions to the Virgin Mary, Fatima, the Sophia, and the Shekinah.[120] Specific types of religious feminism include Christian feminism,[121] Islamic feminism,[122][123] and Jewish feminism.[124][125]

#100

Skep tickle wrote:Richard Carrier, not Lousy, had the recent post I was thinking of: http://freethoughtblogs.com/carrier/archives/3626

But it's not the source of the line I was thinking of, instead this:
he doesnâ€™t understand the difference between defining feminism, on which there is no disagreement among feminists

Yes there bloomin' is!

#101

windy wrote:Interesting article:
The origins of our gender roles

Alison Booth sees how the relative bargaining power of men and women has evolved.
http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinio ... 57103.html

However, I'm a bit skeptical about these generalisations on the effects of different types of agriculture:

What happened to relative bargaining between males and females with the introduction of agricultural cultivation? The bargaining power of women was to weaken. Why was this the case? Danish economist Ester Boserup (1970) distinguished between two forms of soil cultivation to prepare the ground for planting in her book, Woman's Role in Economic Development.

The first form is the labour-intensive shifting cultivation, which uses hand-held devices such as the hoe and the digging stick. The second form is the more capital-intensive plough cultivation, which requires upper-body strength to control the plough. Consequently, the latter form of cultivation gave men a comparative advantage relative to women and led to a division of labour in which men worked in the fields while women specialised in work in and around the home. This gender-based division of labour then gave rise to a culture which codified women's place as being in the home.

Testable predictions of this theory are that cultures based on plough cultivation are characterised by less equal beliefs about gender roles. Some recent economic studies empirically test the hypothesis that different agricultural practices influenced the historical gender division of labour, and that they also contributed to the evolution and persistence of gender norms.

One example is the 2012 paper "On the Origins of Gender Roles: Women and the Plough" by Alesina, Giuliano and Nunn. The study shows that individuals, ethnicities and countries whose ancestors engaged in plough agriculture are characterised by greater gender inequality today, as well as by lower female participation in a range of activities outside the domestic sphere.
I haven't read that article yet, but I'm curious to see how they explain high female participation in some places that have a history of plough agriculture- for example:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c ... 09.svg.png
(rock carving of ploughing with oxen in Bronze Age Sweden)

Article is incredibly simplistic - misleadingly so I would say. It's almost pandering to the old Darwinian idea of women as 'coy'. For instance, "She does not want to waste her opportunities on unsuitable men; they have to be screened out. So we have female selectivity on the one hand and male persistence on the other hand." This is a gross misrepresentation of human sexual strategies - a lot of which are conditional and pertain to environmental factors.

Another obvious boob: "Once the baby is born, she has to feed and protect the child for a long time afterwards" Both parents cooperate to do this. She seems to have forgotten in this moment that this is the main thesis of the book.

#102

But Seabright's thesis seems similar to one of mine: that when it comes to the principles of natural selection, men and women differ little. It's with the principles of sexual selection that the differences become manifest.

#103

Good to see you, DGS!

#104

Skep tickle wrote:Good to see you, DGS!

Thank you. I didn't really go anywhere, just was mad busy. Too busy to keep up with you lot! ;)

Guest · #105

16bitheretic wrote: Is society patriarchal? Well, if they mean patriarchy solely as a descriptor of more men holding power than women then yes, it is.

Even this is (or should be, but isn't, according to feminists) up for debate.

In the US (I'm not going to track down sources; searching through Reddit's r/mensrights will be fruitful for those who want them):

More men are in higher positions in government, but the majority of voters are women. Men earn more, but women have more money (through inheritance, alimony, etc.); in fact, women own 60% of US wealth. Women use more disposable income than men do. Men are assaulted, raped, and murdered more than women are. If one excludes prison rape, the numbers for rape are pretty much equal, with 80% of extra-prison rapes being committed by women; and if one includes prison rape, men vastly outnumber women as victims. Women have an own-sex bias, and men don't. Women get preferential treatment in courts. And there's lots more.

To claim with all of these disadvantages for men and advantages for women that there is a patriarchy (in the feminist sense of the word) is willfully ignorant. At best, men and women have an equal influence in, and benefit from, US society. At worst, men are inferior to women in the US.

#106

Guest wrote:
16bitheretic wrote: Is society patriarchal? Well, if they mean patriarchy solely as a descriptor of more men holding power than women then yes, it is.
Even this is (or should be, but isn't, according to feminists) up for debate.

In the US (I'm not going to track down sources; searching through Reddit's r/mensrights will be fruitful for those who want them):

More men are in higher positions in government, but the majority of voters are women. Men earn more, but women have more money (through inheritance, alimony, etc.); in fact, women own 60% of US wealth. Women use more disposable income than men do. Men are assaulted, raped, and murdered more than women are. If one excludes prison rape, the numbers for rape are pretty much equal, with 80% of extra-prison rapes being committed by women; and if one includes prison rape, men vastly outnumber women as victims. Women have an own-sex bias, and men don't. Women get preferential treatment in courts. And there's lots more.

To claim with all of these disadvantages for men and advantages for women that there is a patriarchy (in the feminist sense of the word) is willfully ignorant. At best, men and women have an equal influence in, and benefit from, US society. At worst, men are inferior to women in the US.

http://i.imgur.com/4qNmP6X.jpg

#107

Guest wrote:80% of male extra-prison rapes being committed by women

This is my post. I wanted to post a correction (the bolded), but Slymepit decided my IP was verboten so I decided to register. Hi, all.

Metalogic42 wrote:http://i.imgur.com/4qNmP6X.jpg

Anita Sarkeesian is very close to Rebecca Watson on the feminist bullshit scale. Slightly less pugnacious and slightly more pretty, but equally as exploitative of gullible persons. She's too dumb/ignorant to be as malicious/culpable as Rebecca Watson is.

Guest · #108

Feminism is the belief that the Duke Lacrosse team is guilty.

#109

I'm not certain to what degree I agree with this but it certainly seems well argued:

http://gynotheory.blogspot.com/2011/02/ ... tical.html

It rings particularly true in the context of an answer to the question; "what does Amanda Marcotte really want?".

#110

rayshul wrote:I need a copy of Professing Feminism really badly - can't get one on my bloody Sony Reader because I'm in New Zealand. ARGH.

Sandre: Most convo happens in the Periodic Table of Swearing (as a note)! Also, welcome

DGS: I lolled

Probably old and out of date, but i did see it in the US itunes store for $33

#111

TheSandreGuy wrote:Finally a place where I can discuss feminism freely!

Hello I'm new by the way :)

Welcome and fuck off!

Someone will be coming along presently to give you a basketful of lynx. They are cute, but hungry, so don't attempt to pet them.

#112

Matt Cavanaugh wrote:
TheSandreGuy wrote:Finally a place where I can discuss feminism freely!

Hello I'm new by the way :)
Welcome and fuck off!

Someone will be coming along presently to give you a basketful of lynx. They are cute, but hungry, so don't attempt to pet them.

Here, I took that one yesterday morning:

http://i391.photobucket.com/albums/oo35 ... 2aea32.jpg

#113

@Phil

Your new kitties are adorable. You are a lucky mom!

#114

Matt Cavanaugh wrote:
TheSandreGuy wrote:Finally a place where I can discuss feminism freely!

Hello I'm new by the way :)

I'm new here also and recently had my first dose of ... I can't believe I'm saying this... feminazism.

I used to call myself a feminist but something happened to the movement. It got crazy! This shit is insane and I'm worried it's aiding and abetting creationists and other miscreants. I've spent the last few days catching up on events after experiencing Pendagon I'm actually a little scared of these people. It's like they're at war with anyone who slightly deviates from their tiny sliver of a viewpoint.

If there's a movement to push the A+ crowd out... no more invitations to conventions, vocal denunciations by luminaries, and complete marginalization... I want in. I'd welcome joining nefarious plots involving guerrilla theater and other legal and ethical mischief.

#115

You'll find the "movement" here is more to expose the hypocrisy and the outrageous, illogical ravings of the A-plussers via satire & ridicule. Most Pitters are too emotionally balanced and preoccupied with mundane activities -- like playing with their cats, gardening, drinking scotch, and WoW -- to find the motivation to engage in activism.

The FtBs are pretty obsessed with what we say about them, and that seems sufficient to goad them into further public displays of idiocy & lunacy.

But feel free to make some suggestions for "mischief".

#116

I was disappointed (but not surprised) this weekend to run into 2 feminist women, one touting the supposed superiority of women and the other touting the supposed inferiority of men. Thing is, they were UUs attending a UU conference - the first principle of UUism being to "affirm and promote the inherent worth and dignity of every person". ('Course those are principles the congregations affirm, there's no requirement for an individual to do so. But most seem to come pretty close.)

(FWIW both women were in their 70's)

#117

Did they elaborate on why women were better than men?

#118

Matt Cavanaugh wrote:Did they elaborate on why women were better than men?

Not so much why...

From the "women superior" person, pretty much a quote: women have inherent "ways of knowing" that should be more widely appreciated and listened to.

From the "men inferior" person, my paraphrase: women now making up >50% of the admitted students in some post-graduate programs, in which women used to be a minority, must mean that women are the stronger candidates. Also, the men deserve to be in the minority among admitted students; turnabout is fair play.