On Contemporary Feminism

I may be thought to be a Martian anthropologist working on Venus here, but I have to say a few words about the feminism of the 21st century.

As I understand it, there is an important divide between what we may call "identity feminists" on the one hand, and the Ruth Bader Ginsburg sort, whom one might call 'radical feminists," on the other. Let's just say IF and RF hereafter for short.

I'll call the latter "radical" because that is a term that used to be hurtled at them as an insult, sometimes as part of larger constructions such as 'TERF,' because many of them have adopted it, and because it should in this context give no offense. After all, how can it be a bad thing to get to the 'root' of a matter?

The contention of RF is that many (most? all?) societies have for a long time given women ("female bodied women" if that phrase is really considered necessary!), a raw deal and that people of that description ought to band together, with men/male allies where feasible and necessary, to improve that situation. Part of the platform of this banding together involves the introduction of women into networks whence they had previously been excluded. Men-only golf courses are anathema to RF because these are places where men discuss business, and thus it constitutes a boys-club business alliance that has the effect of excluding women from effectiveness back in the office.

Importantly, though, RF was never hostile to, indeed it was quite friendly toward, organizations such as the LPGA. Because of the LPGA, men and women can use the same golf course, and rub elbows in the club house, but in a context in which each sex competes chiefly against itself. Because, after all, there are differences. Endocrinology and all that.

These two points -- breaking up men-only networks on the one hand and creating women-specific networks on the other, were not seen -- are not seen -- by RF as contradictory, but as following from a common program, resistance to male dominance of society at large. I am of course using the game of golf as synecdoche for a much broader range of issues -- if anyone believes my simplification does some harm to my broader point, I'd be happy to hear why. (Okay, well, not "happy." Politely resigned.)

But I've been alluding chiefly to 20th century political battles here. The "pussy hats" take us into the 21st. These hats emerged beginning with the inauguration of Donald Trump, and they were inspired by Trump's notorious taped comments on how a celebrity such as himself can get away with grabbing women by said pussy. The hat was a "grab THIS sucka" riposte.

Yet now pussy hats have been repudiated by many feminists. And here we start to see the difference between RF and IF. The hats have been repudiated because not all women, as the term is now understood, have female body parts. So the pussy hat as a symbol doesn't unite women and may hurt the feelings of those women who have penises. Let's be "nonbinary," goes the appeal.

Now, the difference between RF and IF isn't a matter of fashion. Old school Ginsburgian RF is content to be "binary" about the sexes because it addresses itself to what it sees as a system of discrimination against one half of humanity for the benefit of the other. Bruce Jenner was on the masculine and privileged side of that dichotomy for much of his life, including the period when the Olympics and Wheaties made his fortune. For him, late in life, to decide that he is 'really' a woman is, in the eyes of the RF, rather suspect.

What if, as a younger man, Bruce Jenner had decided to identify as a woman and to start competing as "Kaitlin," with women rather than with men in the track and field events that made him famous. That would surely have been seen by the ('other'?) women in track and field as unfair to them. A continuation of historic oppression, not a solution to it. And RFs would have sympathized with the complaint. Identity feminists would not. That's the difference. The same is true of course of a Tiger Woods identifying as 'Tigress' and joining the LPGA. IF: "So brave of her!" RF, "Men are such tricky bastards!"

Here is a link to an article in which the split within feminism I have been discussing is explicitly discussed. Enjoy.

https://medium.com/@kathleenstock/my-response-to-dr-asia-ferrin-188ad6243219

A Story About Coleridge

This is a quote from a memoir by Dorothy Wordsworth, reflecting on a trip she took with two famous poets, her brother, William Wordsworth, and their similarly gifted companion, Samuel Taylor Coleridge. We sat upon a bench, placed for the sake of one of these views, whence we looked down upon the waterfall, and over the open country ... A lady and gentleman, more expeditious tourists than ourselves, came to the spot; they left us at the seat, and we found them again at another station above the Falls. Coleridge, who is always good-natured enough to enter into conversation with anybody whom he meets in his way, began to talk with the gentleman, who observed that it was a majestic waterfall. Coleridge was delighted with the accuracy of the epithet, particularly as he had been settling in his own mind the precise meaning of the words grand, majestic, sublime, etc., and had discussed the subject with William at some length the day before. “Yes, sir,” says Coleridge, “it is a majesti

Five Lessons from the Allegory of the Cave

Please correct me if there are others. But it seems to be there are five lessons the reader is meant to draw from the story about the cave. First, Plato is working to devalue what we would call empiricism. He is saying that keeping track of the shadows on the cave wall, trying to make sense of what you see there, will NOT get you to wisdom. Second, Plato is contending that reality comes in levels. The shadows on the wall are illusions. The solid objects being passed around behind my back are more real than their shadows are. BUT … the world outside the the cave is more real than that — and the sun by which that world is illuminated is the top of the hierarchy. So there isn’t a binary choice of real/unreal. There are levels. Third, he equates realness with knowability. I only have opinions about the shadows. Could I turn around, I could have at least the glimmerings of knowledge. Could I get outside the cave, I would really Know. Fourth, the parable assigns a task to philosophers

Searle: The Chinese Room

John Searle has become the object of accusations of improper conduct. These accusations even have some people in the world of academic philosophy saying that instructors in that world should try to avoid teaching Searle's views. That is an odd contention, and has given rise to heated exchanges in certain corners of the blogosphere. At Leiter Reports, I encountered a comment from someone describing himself as "grad student drop out." GSDO said: " This is a side question (and not at all an attempt to answer the question BL posed): How important is John Searle's work? Are people still working on speech act theory or is that just another dead end in the history of 20th century philosophy? My impression is that his reputation is somewhat inflated from all of his speaking engagements and NYRoB reviews. The Chinese room argument is a classic, but is there much more to his work than that?" I took it upon myself to answer that on LR. But here I'll tak

Jamesian Philosophy Refreshed

Search This Blog