
The problem with C+= and feminism - lawl
http://pastebin.com/Z8Z1qsrB
======
yetanotherphd
The fundamental issue of C+= is the line between legitimate political
discourse and offensive material is very subjective and political, and yet it
is treated like it is an objective matter by the companies who censor C+=.
They are basically saying "you can have any opinion you like, but if the left
deems this opinion to be offensive, then it is no longer legitimate political
expression".

Furthermore, some people on the left add a completely wrong notion that if you
criticize group X, and someone else harasses or threatens someone from group
X, then all criticism of group X is complicit in this harassment.

------
Myrmornis
I think Arielle Schlessinger was just an early stage grad student (a clue in
that she doesn't use the word "normative" correctly), so she shouldn't be
blamed too much for publicly disseminating pretentious nonsense. But the more
senior person posting below her, Cathy Davidson, should have known better. In
any case same criticism of both: they are damaging, not enhancing, women's
opportunities in technical fields by seeking to associate absurd cultural
theory with the advancement of women's roles in technical subjects. The sorts
of women who will succeed in technical subjects will laugh/dispair at them,
just like the sorts of men who will succeed.

------
mherkender
> There is no formal definition of feminism, and everybody that claims
> something stupid under it's name just hurts it.

A feminist advocates or supports the rights and equality of women. Full stop.

~~~
lawl
That's what I thought. And then a huge flamewar emerged in IRC about how
equality is wrong. It should be comparability not equality. Because eqaulity
would mean men == women. So the rights shouldn't be equal but comparable,
because mixed soccer leagues would be unfair. It went then on in a discussion
if the idea of comparability isn't maybe patriarchic because in studying
performance between gender there has been no significant statistical
difference etc. etc.

So no. You're wrong.

~~~
mherkender
How can I be wrong about the dictionary definition of a word?

~~~
lawl
Touché. But you understand what I'm getting at. Even if you take the
dictionary definition there is still a lot of room for interpretation. Who
defines what equality exactly includes? And please don't post the definition
of equality now ;-) I can't change the pastebin now.

~~~
mherkender
I'm an atheist, and there are atheists I don't agree with, but there isn't one
way to be an atheist and I don't really expect anything from them except to
not believe in god. I see feminism to be the same way, and I think you expect
too much uniformity from it.

Gender equality (I'll spare you the definition) includes many things, so I'm
not sure how to explain it better than that, but I do think it includes not
having unfairly strong, negative reactions to anything involving feminism and
the common topics this kind of forum has.

------
thenerdfiles
_The dialects of technologism emerge_.

Look. If you want to get into modern research on Logic, see
[http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logic-
free/](http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logic-free/) and
[http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logic-
modal/](http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logic-modal/).

This entire discussion falls under _Rhetoric_ , or metacognition anyway; on
its worst days, _Politics_ , often codified in polemics. Nevertheless,
Psychologism has been abandoned in modern conceptions of Logic[0].

Now is Psychologism true or false? Take that up with the history of
philosophy, but is this a question about Logic? Are the theories of
paraconsistent logics or the laws of excluded middle _this or some way_ in
virtue of facts of psychological, not even necessarily _biological_ features
of hominids? Or even that we persuade everyone of it so? That's certainly a
debate to be had — but _this_ discussion is about _what counts as valid
satire_ , and _that_ is a question of _Rhetoric_ , not _Logic_. And
_psychologism_ is a question _about Logic_ , a question thought to be settled
like a century ago.

Like the Sokal Hoax, it doesn't change the illogic of No True Scotsman.
Feminism absolutely means something, and it doesn't boil down to some artifact
of the history of feminism. Can it change its meaning? — Inevitably. Is this a
question about, in, within, therein Logic? Modern logic? No. Is gender
equality an issue in, within, therein Logic? Modern logic? Yes. — Our politics
are right fucked, and distributions show gross marginalizations across
demographics. But is this a _problem of Logic_? — Again: _No_.

[0]:
[http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/psychologism/#ConSto](http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/psychologism/#ConSto)

~~~
aaronem
Losethos? Is that you?

