Should Feminism be falsifiable in our discourses?

Author: foreigne48
Feminism
America
culture wars

Posts

Total: 23
Topic's author
#1
foreigne48
foreigne48's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 5
0
0
0
foreigne48's avatar
foreigne48
0
0
0
Disclaimer: I posted this initially on a reddit thread I won't say which and this was literally deleted and I was blocked for this very simple and actually non controversial point. So now I ask two questions. a. Should I have been blocked and b. Should feminism be falsifiable in our political discourse?

I ask this because though I identify as a feminist, I notice many women like myself who do not seem open to the idea that feminism may be incorrect (it isn't) or at minimum wrong on some things, but instead resort to a shutting down of opposing arguments from the other side. This seems to pose 2 major problems:

  1. Telling people to "stop talking" hardly seems productive in the current culture wars. It seems dangerous and antagonistic to other truths we hold as well, not just feminism but the freedom of speech. Disagreement and even offense cannot be grounds to dismiss speech. Simply because someone is offended that I consider their religion to be oppressive and misguided is not reason for me to stop talking about it or possibly have a healthy rational discourse/disagreement about it. The same would apply to discourses on feminism.
  2. Feminism falls under gender studies which falls under the social science of Sociology. There are criteria to determine if an idea is scientific or not. In particular, an idea/theory must be falsifiable. In other words, it must be refutable or quite simply, have the capacity to be proven wrong. I am not saying that it is wrong (it's what I believe) I am saying the possibility of it being so. An example in a hard science would be that of the atom, initially people thought that they were like solid balls, then they discovered electrons, then protons, then neutrons. This evolution of thought was as a result of accepting that the theory is falsifiable and "could be wrong" so it was open to criticism and refinement. Another example in the social sciences would be that Sigmund Freud's thought that cocaine was a good form of psychotherapy. Well, despite Freud being the father of modern psychology we do not believe this today because we could criticize and assess his ideas and prevent people with mental health from developing an addiction as well. If feminism is not refutable, then it is not scientific and if it is not, then how will it be different from religion or mere dogma?
As a feminist, I see neither 1 or 2 as desirable. No discourse sounds like a recipe for social strife and I don't think feminism is some dogma to be believed in. I think there are facts to be assessed that will give people good reason to believe it and even if it isn't accepted by someone, at least I know that I was rigorous and thorough in my beliefs.
Thoughts? Does anyone agree? Should feminism be falsifiable?

#2
Lemming
Lemming's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 3,438
4
5
10
Lemming's avatar
Lemming
4
5
10
-->
@foreigne48
I'm more for censorship, when kids are involved than adults,
Internet doesn't really have Identification of users though.

Still, this isn't some school website, or kids forum,
And I've rather have more freedom to say and read as I'd like.

. . . 

People 'have been banned on this website before,
Can't say I 'agreed with the ban, myself.

. . .

I think beliefs should be falsifiable,
Even the one's I strongly hold.

. . .

I probably 'would be for ban people for posting nude pictures, maybe excessive profanity.

Not really in the same vein though, I think,
Though maybe is for some.
#3
K_Michael
K_Michael's avatar
Debates: 38
Posts: 749
4
5
10
K_Michael's avatar
K_Michael
4
5
10
-->
@foreigne48
What do you mean by falsifiable?
Like should people be able to argue that a specific belief is invalid?

I've always associated the word feminism with the social movement, not the beliefs behind it, though I guess it could apply to both. I support the feminism movement because I'm an egalitarian.

an idea/theory must be falsifiable.
I don't think feminists view their movement as based on a "theory" so much as a philosophy.
I would say that feminism can be informed by scientific claims such as "there are no major differences in neurology between men and women" or "women can succeed at any job just as well as men" which you can investigate through social studies, etc, but neither of those claims are universal to the feminist movement.
The feminist umbrella extends from people who just want to vote and own property, to Free the Nipple and affirmative action to compensate for gender bias in traditionally male-dominated workplace.

Personally, I believe that while there are several differences in men and women, some biological and some acquired from their social environment, people should be able to pursue their dreams, even if they're "not wired" for it. I wouldn't want people to say that I couldn't hold certain positions because I'm right-handed or am introverted, or my IQ is too high/low, and I have no more control over those things than my sex.

#4
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,185
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@foreigne48
Should feminism be falsifiable.

What does this mean?

Or a more accurate question would be, what are you asking?

The above narrative doesn't really explain anything.

Feminism is quite definitively specific and therefore is what it is within a wider social context. As a stand-alone ideology there is nothing to falsify.
#5
Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 3,192
3
3
9
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
9
-->
@foreigne48
I ask this because though I identify as a feminist,
That's unfortunate.

I notice many women like myself who do not seem open to the idea that feminism may be incorrect
Because the basis of feminism is almost entirely premised on how feminists feel, not what they can prove or substantiate. And feelings are never "incorrect."

(it isn't)
I wouldn't use the term "incorrect," but It for the most part is.

but instead resort to a shutting down of opposing arguments from the other side.
What's the "other side" to feminism? Antifeminism? Why would one not make it a point to shut down arguments which stem from the antipode of one's own philosophy?

Telling people to "stop talking" hardly seems productive in the current culture wars. It seems dangerous and antagonistic to other truths we hold as well, not just feminism but the freedom of speech. Disagreement and even offense cannot be grounds to dismiss speech. Simply because someone is offended that I consider their religion to be oppressive and misguided is not reason for me to stop talking about it or possibly have a healthy rational discourse/disagreement about it. The same would apply to discourses on feminism.
I suppose. But consider it in the context of political discourse. "Rational disagreement" means the absence of votes, or votes against.

Feminism falls under gender studies which falls under the social science of Sociology. There are criteria to determine if an idea is scientific or not. In particular, an idea/theory must be falsifiable.
What can feminism prove and/or deduce from empirical observation and data?

and I don't think feminism is some dogma to be believed in.
If it's not dogma, then what is it?

I think there are facts to be assessed that will give people good reason to believe it and even if it isn't accepted by someone, at least I know that I was rigorous and thorough in my beliefs.
What are some of these assessed facts which inform your feminism?

Should feminism be falsifiable?
Feminism isn't a science. In my opinion, I wouldn't even consider it in the realm of social science. It's a philosophy that is not contingent on the scientific method or empirical metrics.

#6
Public-Choice
Public-Choice's avatar
Debates: 19
Posts: 1,065
3
4
8
Public-Choice's avatar
Public-Choice
3
4
8
-->
@foreigne48
I once got banned for posting about how political violence is stupid. It got 1000 upvotes in the Libertarian sub.

Reddit is a cesspool of fringe leftist nonsense and people like IWantRooseveltAgain and government censorship.
#7
Lemming
Lemming's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 3,438
4
5
10
Lemming's avatar
Lemming
4
5
10
-->
@Public-Choice
There's probably times and places political violence achieves goals,
But a 'lot of examples where it's counterproductive to one's ends and ideals, 'do come to mind.
#8
Avery
Avery's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 323
1
2
5
Avery's avatar
Avery
1
2
5
-->
@foreigne48
Disclaimer: I posted this initially on a reddit thread I won't say which and this was literally deleted and I was blocked for this very simple and actually non controversial point. So now I ask two questions. a. Should I have been blocked
You were blocked because the group decided you were an impediment to their goals. Politics at the macrosocietal level isn't about what is right or wrong, it's about getting resources for the group, damn everything else. In that sense, of course you should be blocked. So, when you start testing the veracity of feminist claims, the group hears, 'should we really be getting this free stuff? Are we really that oppressed?' In essence, you're potentially destroying a narrative that gets them free stuff.

In the sense of reason, logic and attempting to understand the veracity of feminist claims, of course you shouldn't have been blocked. Testing ideas helps to strengthen great ones or dismantle bad ones. If your questions couldn't have been answered in a logically consistent way, then feminism isn't as logically consistent as the group is claiming.

b. Should feminism be falsifiable in our political discourse?
Yes, it should be, but humans are tribal and don't care about being consistent/logical when free stuff is on the line.

As a feminist, I see neither 1 or 2 as desirable. No discourse sounds like a recipe for social strife and I don't think feminism is some dogma to be believed in. I think there are facts to be assessed that will give people good reason to believe it and even if it isn't accepted by someone, at least I know that I was rigorous and thorough in my beliefs.
Thoughts? Does anyone agree? Should feminism be falsifiable?
My thought is this: you're one step further to becoming an anti-feminist.
#9
Public-Choice
Public-Choice's avatar
Debates: 19
Posts: 1,065
3
4
8
Public-Choice's avatar
Public-Choice
3
4
8
My thought is this: you're one step further to becoming an anti-feminist.
No he isn't. I think Christianity should be falsifiable and I'm not one step closer to becoming an atheist.

We should believe things on the merit of their existence, that doesn't make you anti-the-things-you-believe.

Fwiw, I think mainstream feminism (i.e. not the wackjob 4th wavers) is completely logical and falsifiable. Equal rights just makes sense and is very apparent in nature and in man's natural impulse.

But that doesn't mean I am anti-feminism because I think it should be able to be proven. That's just common sense. People who don't think this way are a threat to society and no different than savages. We are thinking creatures. We have brains. We aren't unrestrained savages who do whatever we feel. We live in a society where we settle our disputes with logic and reason and not fists and temper tantrums. This is the enlightenment way of living.
#10
Avery
Avery's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 323
1
2
5
Avery's avatar
Avery
1
2
5
-->
@Public-Choice
My thought is this: you're one step further to becoming an anti-feminist.
No he isn't.
She.

I think Christianity should be falsifiable and I'm not one step closer to becoming an atheist.

We should believe things on the merit of their existence, that doesn't make you anti-the-things-you-believe.
That wasn't my implicit argument.

My implicit argument was that because she's seeing feminists ban her for merely disagreeing with them, and essentially refusing to engage in productive discussion, might help her realize that feminists don't have good answers for the questions she's asking, and that feminism has some major logical gaps in it.

This is usually how thinking people get converted. For example, a Christian thinking about what the Bible says might see 'thou shall not lie with the same sex', go to their pastor and ask him to explain this Bible verse, and be scolded for asking a rude question or being intolerant or whatever. And so the narrative starts to crumble because there becomes a contradiction: (1) the Bible is infallible, and (2) the pastor isn't explaining the problematic Bible verse. Does the pastor believe the Bible or not? Why are you allowing gays in the church when the Bible says no? Crack. Crack. Crack. The worldview isn't consistent, and the Christian will only ask more questions. If you question something enough, eventually you won't believe it.

Hopefully, the parallels with feminism are clear.

Fwiw, I think mainstream feminism (i.e. not the wackjob 4th wavers) is completely logical and falsifiable. Equal rights just makes sense and is very apparent in nature and in man's natural impulse.

But that doesn't mean I am anti-feminism because I think it should be able to be proven. That's just common sense. People who don't think this way are a threat to society and no different than savages. We are thinking creatures. We have brains. We aren't unrestrained savages who do whatever we feel. We live in a society where we settle our disputes with logic and reason and not fists and temper tantrums. This is the enlightenment way of living.
The validity of feminism really isn't all that relevant to thread's topic. It's also quite tricky and lengthy to present a counterargument to this, so I won't do that here.
#11
Public-Choice
Public-Choice's avatar
Debates: 19
Posts: 1,065
3
4
8
Public-Choice's avatar
Public-Choice
3
4
8
-->
@Avery
and be scolded for asking a rude question or being intolerant or whatever.
Well that pastor failed miserably at apologetics if that is their response.

If you question something enough, eventually you won't believe it.
Disagree. God has been questioned for 6,000 years and there are more believers today than ever.

The validity of feminism really isn't all that relevant to thread's topic.
Let's just quote the OP on this one:
Thoughts? Does anyone agree? Should feminism be falsifiable?
OP literally asked if feminism should be falsifiable. Therefore it is completely relevant to the topic.

feminism has some major logical gaps in it.
Well, that's because it does. The current feminist narrative is that men and women are equal yet women are inferior and victims.

Feminists state that men and women are equal, but then bitch when men compete in women's sports. Well, which is it? Are men and women equal or do you want segregation and admit men are better athletically than women?

Feminists state women are just as powerful as men yet then complain they are overpowered by the patriarchy and that it is hopeless. Well, which is it? Are women helpless victims of the patriarchy or are they equal and able to take over the business and political world?

Feminists can't answer the two above questions because they are blatantly unfalsifiable religious dogmas of feminism.
#12
Polytheist-Witch
Polytheist-Witch's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 4,188
3
3
6
Polytheist-Witch's avatar
Polytheist-Witch
3
3
6
Even in 2022 women are viewed as second class human beings. Challenging that will get you shut down. Especially by other women. Considerate a privilege that you were told to f*** off.
#13
sadolite
sadolite's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,203
3
2
4
sadolite's avatar
sadolite
3
2
4
Feminism is a social narrative, it isn't scientific, therefore nothing about it can be falsified. Any argument you can make can be countered with a different perspective. Both perspectives can be valid. Like any ideological narrative, they all have their hidden down sides and consequences. There are many once staunch hard core feminist's that regret having been caught  up in the femmenist narrative and it ruined their lives. 
#14
Avery
Avery's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 323
1
2
5
Avery's avatar
Avery
1
2
5
-->
@Public-Choice
and be scolded for asking a rude question or being intolerant or whatever.
Well that pastor failed miserably at apologetics if that is their response.
Well okay, but he's not very good because he can't be. There's no tolerance of gays and genuine Christianity being accepted at the same time.

If you question something enough, eventually you won't believe it.
Disagree. God has been questioned for 6,000 years and there are more believers today than ever.
No, as in an individual questioning something enough (hence: "you"), not the collective necessarily.

The validity of feminism really isn't all that relevant to thread's topic.
Let's just quote the OP on this one:
Thoughts? Does anyone agree? Should feminism be falsifiable?
OP literally asked if feminism should be falsifiable. Therefore it is completely relevant to the topic
No, the OP is questioning whether the topic should even be open to an assessment of validity.

feminism has some major logical gaps in it.
Well, that's because it does. The current feminist narrative is that men and women are equal yet women are inferior and victims.

Feminists state that men and women are equal, but then bitch when men compete in women's sports. Well, which is it? Are men and women equal or do you want segregation and admit men are better athletically than women?

Feminists state women are just as powerful as men yet then complain they are overpowered by the patriarchy and that it is hopeless. Well, which is it? Are women helpless victims of the patriarchy or are they equal and able to take over the business and political world?

Feminists can't answer the two above questions because they are blatantly unfalsifiable religious dogmas of feminism.
Yes :)
Topic's author
#15
foreigne48
foreigne48's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 5
0
0
0
foreigne48's avatar
foreigne48
0
0
0
-->
@zedvictor4
@K_Michael
By falsifiability, I mean "the capacity for some proposition, statement, theory or hypothesis to be proven wrong." This does not mean this idea is necessarily wrong, but merely the capacity to be wrong. For example, historical ideas are falsifiable because as new data comes out, we constantly refine our understanding of the past because we are open to being wrong, despite knowing that some history is true.

To K_Michael
I guess this is a personal question and you may answer if you want, but if Feminism is a social movement and not a theory, then why do you subscribe to this social movement? You cannot simply state egalitarianism as the sole reason. Some humanists are egalitarians, why not be a humanist?

I agree that feminism is a Philosophy, as is the idea that "all men are equal." These are political/social philosophies. The problem here is that, philosophies must also be defended with logic and reason. This feeling that we can assert a philosophical belief upon someone is absurd and akin to religious dogma(another philosophy), hence why I asked in the first place. The only example of this open acceptance of some political or social axiom is in the constitution "We hold these truths as self evident" these are axioms that are the foundation to the rest of what follows in the document, everything else needs to be argued for and reasoned out. I cannot just assert or say that "disabled people should not vote" not only is it an absurd assertion, but offering no reason for this makes it unworthy of consideration.

To zedvictor4
What does this mean?
Or a more accurate question would be, what are you asking?

I explained above what I meant by falsifiability.


The above narrative doesn't really explain anything.


I wasn't giving a "narrative" I was asking for everyone's opinion on whether feminism should be falsifiable or not. I then gave my opinion on why I thought it should be and was looking for people to either agree or disagree.

Feminism is quite definitively specific and therefore is what it is within a wider social context. As a stand-alone ideology there is nothing to falsify.
This is the most circular rendition of a concept and dogmatic assertion you can possibly think of. "Feminism is quite definitively specific." Then what is it? When people say that something is specific or definitive, this means you can offer a very particular definition of what it is. For example, a dog can be defined as "a domesticated carnivorous mammal that typically has a long snout, an acute sense of smell, nonretractable claws, and a barking, howling, or whining voice." I can become even more specific in my definition and add it's scientific and evolutionary past and further define it as descending from wolves. This is undoubtedly a dog. We can define liberty as "freedom from arbitrary or despotic control." What is Feminism? We don't even need a robust definition any will do. However, I don't want this conversation to devolve into semantics. Defining Feminism as "is what it is" is just a redundant truism. A dog "is what it is" as is ice cream or clowns. They are what they are. Nothing enlightening in that. "As a stand alone ideology there is nothing to falsify." Do you know that this is the precise definition of what an ideologue is? "an often blindly partisan advocate or adherent of a particular ideology" For example, 'White supremacy' is a stand alone ideology. I think it is perfectly fine to describe such adherents as ideologues because they subscribe to an idea without having any particular reason for believing it. They just do. This is why I say a battle between ideologues can hardly produce anything worth noticing in society.
Topic's author
#16
foreigne48
foreigne48's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 5
0
0
0
foreigne48's avatar
foreigne48
0
0
0
-->
@Athias
What's the "other side" to feminism? Antifeminism? Why would one not make it a point to shut down arguments which stem from the antipode of one's own philosophy?
1. What is the "other side" of white supremacy? Anti-White Supremacy? See how ridiculous that sounds. Feminism is the ideology. You can either be an adherent or not. Non-adherents do not need a  term of description outside of a personal statement of "I don't believe in ___ ideology." I don't label myself as "anti-greek religion" or "Anti-authoritarinism" or "anti-cucumbers" just because I don't like or adhere to an ideology or thing. I just don't believe them. I think we have enough bullshit language in our speech that hardly helps in clarity and only causes confusion. It becomes so easy to set up straw man arguments using this silly idea. For example, if I am anti-authoritarianism, does that mean I am against authority figures? These easy semantic confusions arise for no reason. Saying that you are anti-feminist could be mis-construed as being "against women", when you just may not agree with how current feminist ideologies want to help women. Again, hardly seems helpful in serious discourse.

2. There is a difference between, disagreeing/opposing a view point and shutting it down. The former gives reason, engages with the other side and quite honestly, expands the knowledge of the other side and even your own views. The latter is rude, usually poorly informed and hardly leads to a better understanding of the other side or your own view.

I suppose. But consider it in the context of political discourse. "Rational disagreement" means the absence of votes, or votes against.
And this is a failure of society. Your statement just acknowledged that votes took precedence over rational discourse. Democracy does not run on mindless votes. It runs on making educated, rational and moral political decisions. This is why America is where it is now politically and socially.


What can feminism prove and/or deduce from empirical observation and data?

Nothing. I'm happy you asked because understanding that it is a philosophical idea gives us reason to see why it should be dealt with as a philosophical idea. Law is not a scientific concept either it is a mix between moral, political and social philosophies, but still, Law is deeply concerned with evidence and argumentation. I think Feminism is not and cannot be exempt from this scrutiny.

If it's not dogma, then what is it?

I think that if you steal, you should be evaluated by the law and be given an appropriate punishment. This is not a scientific statement, but it is not dogma either. It is a value judgement. One that many believe to be correct because we can all argue that not doing so is morally unjust, causes harm to others and their property etc etc. I believe that women should be able to go to school, learn to read, marry whoever they want. I don't think it is dogmatic to say so. I think there are very good reasons to not only believe but do so. I am not merely asserting this idea. Just like the former value judgement being some sort of social, moral and political philosophy about law, rooted in reason and arguments, so do I think that women being able to go to school, learn to read and marry whoever they want is a sort of social, moral and political philosophy rooted in reason and not mere assertions and dogma about women, that you should just accept because I said so. I think reasonable, rational people can see why I said that those things should be done in society.


What are some of these assessed facts which inform your feminism?

There are many sensible, brilliant, moral women who are capable of doing certain jobs in our society and they should be allowed to pursue their own happiness, wealth and dignity equally by being contributing members of our society. They should help society build and grow to it's full potential. As humans we should have the opportunity and liberty to do so. If a woman wants to help people who are sick to the highest degree, she should be able to devote her life and mind to medicine if she so desired. That is a noble thing to do. If a woman wants to promote justice and protect those who have been done injustice then she should be allowed to be a lawyer. If a woman wants to live with her husband and nurture their children because that is where she feels fulfilled, she should do so. If women do such things, they will help and not destroy our society. That is a fact.

Topic's author
#17
foreigne48
foreigne48's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 5
0
0
0
foreigne48's avatar
foreigne48
0
0
0
-->
@Public-Choice
This is the kind of discourse that we need in our society. People think this is a joke, but it is destroying our democracy and I think it's time for regular common sense Americans to step away from the ideologues of the far left and the far right and to root ourselves in reason. This is why people are becoming distraught with the political process. I think most Americans know and feel this. Most normal Americans know there is something very off about the far right and White Supremacy, neo-nazis etc and something very off about death to police and the idea that pronouns are the biggest violence against humanity etc. These ideologies are mere assertions of absurdities that has never been rooted in practicality or any form of reason.

I think it should be a requirement that before people begin to address a disagreeing viewpoint in any public context, that they should be very knowledgeable about the opposing side and give the strongest argument of the opposing side before they open their mouths. I know this is not practical and extreme, but it would do our country so much good.
#18
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,185
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@foreigne48
Just look up feminism and its definition is quite specific.

The advocacy of women's rights on the basis of equality of the sexes.

Of course, any clever clogs or not so clever clogs can expand upon a basic tenet.

Especially if the sole purpose of the exercise is to generate a contentious discussion.
Topic's author
#19
foreigne48
foreigne48's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 5
0
0
0
foreigne48's avatar
foreigne48
0
0
0
-->
@zedvictor4
Just look up feminism and its definition is quite specific.
I did say that "I don't want this conversation to devolve into semantics." I already know what Feminism is and have read quite a lot about it and identify as one. I was really addressing that to you because your responses were lacking in content and instead of answering the question "should feminism be falsifiable in our political discourse?" you proceeded to ask "what are you asking?"  I felt like my question was fairly easy to understand. And the "narrative" that you claimed I wrote actually explained in '2' what I meant by falsifiable. I stated:

"Feminism falls under gender studies which falls under the social science of Sociology. There are criteria to determine if an idea is scientific or not. In particular, an idea/theory must be falsifiable. In other words, it must be refutable or quite simply, have the capacity to be proven wrong."

This seems like someone who did not read in entirety what I wrote or did not spend the time to understand what I wrote and instead of thinking of a thoughtful response, quickly pumped out 2 questions and 3 statements, 4 of which argued for nothing and one making an assertion without reason. This was done all while not answering my question.
Of course, any clever clogs or not so clever clogs can expand upon a basic tenet.
No one was speaking about expanding a basic tenet. Again my question was asking "should feminism be falsifiable?" it's only four words. There is no deeper meaning or metaphorical significance.


Especially if the sole purpose of the exercise is to generate a contentious discussion.
1. I thought this was 'Debate.org'
2. My intent was actually to generate critical thinking and a solid discussion of ideas and differing opinions. Some of which I would agree and some of which I would disagree with. So you have literally missed every target on this. You don't answer the question. You don't define anything and completely missed the goal of what I was asking.

Here is what I want and not just what i want, this is just simple logic. I want 2 or more premises (Statements) that lead necessarily to or support a conclusion. For example:

Premise 1: All men are mortal.
Premise 2: Socrates is a man.
Conclusion ∴ Socrates is Mortal.

This is a simple argument. No insults, personal attacks, no rhetoric, just raw logic. It is easy to agree with premise 1 and premise 2 so I have to believe the conclusion. This is what I wanted. Again your format can look like:

Reason 1 for or against
Reason 2 for or against
Conclusion: answer to the question that is supported by reason 1 and 2.

#20
Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 3,192
3
3
9
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
9
-->
@foreigne48
1. What is the "other side" of white supremacy? Anti-White Supremacy? See how ridiculous that sounds. Feminism is the ideology. You can either be an adherent or not. Non-adherents do not need a  term of description outside of a personal statement of "I don't believe in ___ ideology."
How does one remain "agnostic" or neutral in the context of adopting or not adopting feminism? Wouldn't your description of feminism render non-adherents the same as antifeminists?

I don't label myself as "anti-greek religion" or "Anti-authoritarinism" or "anti-cucumbers" just because I don't like or adhere to an ideology or thing.
You're lumping together concepts that aren't quite identical. As far as religion, one can explain it as respecting the privacy of religious practice; as far as authoritarianism, again, how does one remain "agnostic" or neutral?; as far as cucumbers, again, it can explained as respecting the privacy of food choices. Can feminism be private?

I think we have enough bullshit language in our speech that hardly helps in clarity and only causes confusion. It becomes so easy to set up straw man arguments using this silly idea. For example, if I am anti-authoritarianism, does that mean I am against authority figures?
Yes.

Saying that you are anti-feminist could be mis-construed as being "against women", when you just may not agree with how current feminist ideologies want to help women. Again, hardly seems helpful in serious discourse.
There's a correct lexical distinction: antifeminism - position against feminism; misogyny - position of prejudice against women.

2. There is a difference between, disagreeing/opposing a view point and shutting it down. The former gives reason, engages with the other side and quite honestly, expands the knowledge of the other side and even your own views. The latter is rude, usually poorly informed and hardly leads to a better understanding of the other side or your own view.
One would disagree with a position that can't be "shutdown" for lack of a better if it's purely opinion-based. In which case, no one's knowledge expands, nor does one's understanding get "better."

And this is a failure of society. Your statement just acknowledged that votes took precedence over rational discourse. Democracy does not run on mindless votes. It runs on making educated, rational and moral political decisions. This is why America is where it is now politically and socially.
The "educated," rational and moral political decision would be to not vote, or abolish democracy. America is where it is because Democracy is being practiced to its logical extension, i.e. mob rule.

I think Feminism is not and cannot be exempt from this scrutiny.
What tenet or principle of Feminism is evidence based or reasoned through argumentation?

I think that if you steal, you should be evaluated by the law and be given an appropriate punishment. This is not a scientific statement, but it is not dogma either. It is a value judgement. One that many believe to be correct because we can all argue that not doing so is morally unjust, causes harm to others and their property etc etc. I believe that women should be able to go to school, learn to read, marry whoever they want. I don't think it is dogmatic to say so. I think there are very good reasons to not only believe but do so. I am not merely asserting this idea. Just like the former value judgement being some sort of social, moral and political philosophy about law, rooted in reason and arguments, so do I think that women being able to go to school, learn to read and marry whoever they want is a sort of social, moral and political philosophy rooted in reason and not mere assertions and dogma about women, that you should just accept because I said so. I think reasonable, rational people can see why I said that those things should be done in society.
Then why qualify it on the basis of one's sex? What moral or political institution precludes women from learning how to read, going to school, or marrying whomever they want?

There are many sensible, brilliant, moral women who are capable of doing certain jobs in our society and they should be allowed to pursue their own happiness, wealth and dignity equally by being contributing members of our society. They should help society build and grow to it's full potential. As humans we should have the opportunity and liberty to do so. If a woman wants to help people who are sick to the highest degree, she should be able to devote her life and mind to medicine if she so desired. That is a noble thing to do. If a woman wants to promote justice and protect those who have been done injustice then she should be allowed to be a lawyer. If a woman wants to live with her husband and nurture their children because that is where she feels fulfilled, she should do so. If women do such things, they will help and not destroy our society. That is a fact.
Then, again, why qualify this on the basis of one's sex?


#21
K_Michael
K_Michael's avatar
Debates: 38
Posts: 749
4
5
10
K_Michael's avatar
K_Michael
4
5
10
-->
@foreigne48
Some humanists are egalitarians, why not be a humanist?
You say that like humanism and feminism are some how mutually exclusive. One can easily be both.
#22
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,185
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@K_Michael
One can be a potatoist or a carrotist if one so decides to be.

And most philosophy is nonsense overthink.

Though this thread is supposedly current events.


Should potatoism be falsifiable in our discourses?

Hey. Whatever.

64 days later

#23
AleutianTexan
AleutianTexan's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 115
0
3
7
AleutianTexan's avatar
AleutianTexan
0
3
7
I feel like the there is an important divide between "feminism being falsifiable" and people asking if feminism should be falsifiable. In open dialogue spaces, such as here, all ideas should be falsifiable and every idea should be able to be critiqued. In a feminist space, people who ask questions like that should possibly not be tolerated depending on the culture of the space for two major reasons. 

1. If a space is created to talk about issues from a certain framework, then people who question the framework itself shouldn't engage in the space. That is not the purpose of that space and understanding different spaces have different purposes is crucial.

2. As Mao Zedong said "A revolution is not a dinner party" You have no obligation to work or engage in dialogue with ideas you disagree with. If anti-racist organizations and activists are approached by neo-nazis, they have no obligation to work with them or engage in dialogue with them, as they are the utter enemy. In the same way, feminist spaces have no incentive to work with or engage in dialogue with non-feminists, as they remain neutral in the face of patriarchy, and therefore passively greenlight patriarchal violence.