Saturday, June 1, 2013

Feminist ideas

Amanda Marcotte is wondering why nobody is challenging feminist "claims" and "ideas".



The challenge Marcotte made on May 22:

Two days in, and ZERO people who have come up to argue against feminists in the atheist movement have been able to provide a single, substantive argument against feminist claims. Every single detractor's only point was to reassert that feminists shouldn't complain about being tone policed. Apparently, the ever so important anti-feminist arguments that require so much devoted protection from feminist detractors stifling them with the P word are also too precious to be stated out loud.
In all seriousness, clearly feminist arguments within the context of secularism are great, and instead of bullying and tone policing and screeching endlessly at feminists in an effort to get them to leave, they should be allowed to make those arguments in peace. Though, if anyone actually wants to bother arguing against an actual feminist argument one day---instead of coming up with double standard rules-lawyering about HOW we make those arguments---that'd be interesting.

She continues her challenge in a response to another commenter:
The request has been for feminist detractors to stop tone policing, whining about "silencing", etc. and to bring substantive criticisms of the ideas of feminism. If you cannot do this, please leave.

There is only one problem.

Just what are the 'feminist' ideas?

The 'ideas', so far:

This is not a complete list of the insanity, this is just a start.

By and large, the ideas fall into a few buckets:

  • Complete ad-hominem disgust with specific people
  • Arguments that are clearly hollow smears against "anti-feminists"
  • Rants against things that nobody argues in favor of

Put another way, nobody is going to tell Marcotte that she is wrong when she says Ron Lindsay is an asshole. She thought his speech was condescending. She will feel that way. There is no concrete counterclaim to be made.

Second, "feminists" aren't backing up their own 'ideas'. After they label Dawkins as a racist, for example, many wouldn't dare to share that opinion twice. Other ideas, such as "habitual body monitoring" didn't take off as it was so obviously ill-developed as a provable hypothesis and didn't translate into something actionable.

Finally, 'feminists' are often arguing with an empty room. Do they really think their critics are pro-rape? Do they think their critics universally view privilege and rape culture as entirely imaginary?

As long as 'feminists' expect their opponents to argue with their feelings, they will find no convincing responses to their 'ideas'.

1 comment:

  1. Maybe they're not disagreeing because they don't know about the post because Amanda Marcotte isn't exactly someone who gets read by a lot of people who are critical of feminism. This is the same woman who once tried to create a link between MRAs and a guy who killed his wife, because the guy told his friend that the wife was lying to buy time.

    And as your other post pointed out, she saw fit to try and derail discussions of the royal baby onto infant mortality, then when she got called out on it accused her critics of "right-wing depravity".

    For that matter, she never apologized for assuming that the Duke Lacrosse boys were guilty, and only said "the prosecution messed up". No, pay no attention to the unreliable and possibly mentally unstable "victim". It's all the prosecution's fault.

    She goes over well with the tumblrfem crowd, though. I wonder why.

    ReplyDelete