Sommers' Definition of "Gender Feminist"
=o=
> the hetero-patriarchy, specifically as opposed to
> the patriarchy, distinguishes gender feminism?
=o= It's in <37bn8o$3...@crcnis1.unl.edu>, which quotes the
definition of so-called gender feminism straight out of
Sommers' book.
> Again, I agree it's a silly sounding term (but only because
> I think the patriarchy is an obtuse concept anyway; if there
> were a patriarchy, surely it would be a heteropatriarchy),
> but this is more than a straw man, it's a straw whale.
=o= Sommers uses these terms and concepts and claims that they
are the *foundation* of this so-called gender feminism, and that
they are highly influential. It's not at all unreasonable to
at ask what they mean, or where this influence can be observed.
=o= It's also not at all unreasonable to ask her minions in
this newsgroup to explain how they know Sommers is so right
about the meaning and influence of these terms and concepts,
but we haven't even gotten past those first questions yet.
I wonder why.
David Deangelo
of the terms "Gender feminist" and "Equity feminist." And frankly I
am surprised (I guess here I am agreeing with Jym--WOW) that the
discussion has not proceeded beyond those two phrases.
If one were to ACTUALLY read her book and articles, one would realise
that there is a great deal more at work than just these definitional
questions.
Maybe I missed something...
David in Pittsburgh
--
A Separate Knower
David in Pittsburgh
gerry harbison
>> Could you quote me the section where she says that
>> the hetero-patriarchy, specifically as opposed to
>> the patriarchy, distinguishes gender feminism?
>=o= It's in <37bn8o$3...@crcnis1.unl.edu>, which quotes the
>definition of so-called gender feminism straight out of
>Sommers' book.
Nope. Not 'specifically as opposed to the patriarchy'. But thanks
for playing.
>=o= Sommers uses these terms and concepts and claims that they
>are the *foundation* of this so-called gender feminism, and that
>they are highly influential. It's not at all unreasonable to
>at ask what they mean, or where this influence can be observed.
Is a definition necessarily a foundation, or is it simple shorthand??
Many people would say the latter. For example, Popper, in his time
one of the leading philosophers of science, refused to quibble about
a definition of science. Sommers gave a definition, and that's fine,
but her book doesn't stand or fall by that definition. The
gender/equity feminist line being fuzzy does not invalidate the
distinction. And the major thrust (gosh, that's so phallocentric) of
her book, that feminism has been coopted by an extreme ideology (or
ideologies) which
has been intolerant of opposition and cavalier with the truth, has not
been challenged here.
>=o= It's also not at all unreasonable to ask her minions in
>this newsgroup to explain how they know Sommers is so right
>about the meaning and influence of these terms and concepts,
>but we haven't even gotten past those first questions yet.
>I wonder why?
Bacuase you (and a couple of others) have concentrated on this point to
the exclusion of all else? I counted another post today (by my count
that's at least three) that says enough with the definitions, let's
talk about the book.
So lets talk about the book.
--
Gerry Harbison, Associate Professor of Chemistry
Official Spokesman for the University of Nebraska, Lincoln - NOT
I know I should say no/ But it's kinda hard when she's ready to go.
I may be dumb, but I'm not a dweeb/ I'm just a sucker with low self-esteem
SunCat
[...]
> The second is that there was almost no visible _movement_
> until people who _were_ radicals started coming out of the
> Civil Rights, New Left, and hippie communities where they
> had picked up radical ideas like equality, participatory
> democracy, and consciousness-raising, but found that the
> men in those communities had no intention of allowing
> these to apply to the condition of women.
>
> If one is not careful in one's dichotomizing, it will turn
> out that the mainstream or liberal feminists did the
> coopting, and we wouldn't want that to happen, would we?
> --
> >< Gordon Fitch >< g...@panix.com ><
This is just another retread of Reagan's Evil Empire talk. Attack ,
attack, attack. Don't ask questions. Just attack. We are in conflict
with the ultimate evil. Attack. Only a traitor would ask questions.
Attack! Of course they're guilty--they've been accused. And of course
they're men. Don't you love your country/sisterhood? Attack!
Ten years ago I met self-identified feminists who were not irrational
bigots. My friends and I did not have time for the anti-men, womens'
irresponsibilty movement. We did not have time for mind control or
liberal guilt. Now most self-identified feminists on college campuses are
direct imitations of Ronald Reagan and the Moral Majority. The movement
has indeed been kidnapped; not by men but by reactionary women. The right
wing (perhaps I should call them the other right wing) should offer thanks
to the Gender Feminists for all their help.
SunCat>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> kam...@ibm.cl.msu.edu
Weakness and all the ugly things that come from weakness. Rascism, rape, war,
theft, women getting beaten to death with tree branches on the way home from
work so this guy can get the check and go buy crack. All that really ugly stuff
comes from weakness, and that's what I hate. It gives [white supremicist] Tom
Metzger a platform. --Henry Rollins on what really makes him angry
Gordon Fitch
| ... [H]er book doesn't stand or fall by that definition. The
| gender/equity feminist line being fuzzy does not invalidate the
| distinction. And the major thrust (gosh, that's so phallocentric) of
| her book, that feminism has been coopted by an extreme ideology (or
| ideologies) which
| has been intolerant of opposition and cavalier with the truth, has not
| been challenged here.
| that's at least three) that says enough with the definitions, let's
| talk about the book.
|
| So lets talk about the book.
I think it has been the fans of the book who promoted the
usefulness of the gender/equity dichotomy at first. While
it doesn't seem very clear, some kind of dichotomy is
necessary when one starts to talk about concepts like
"cooptation" because one entity has to coopt from another.
The use of "cooptation" connotes a kind of theft, and
clearly there has to be an evil one who steals and a victim
who is stolen from.
To be specific to the case of feminism, one would have to
show against appearances that there was some kind of
active, coherent feminist movement existing up to the late
1960s which was manifestly _not_ radical -- within the
context of its own times, not ours -- which was then
somehow diverted or appropriated by people who can be
defined as radicals. But there are two problems with this
view. The first is that people like Betty Friedan, who can
now be assigned to the liberal, mainstream, or equity
category, were at the time mocked and denounced as radicals.
Barbara Saunders
>In article <39623m$3...@panix.com>, g...@panix.com (Gordon Fitch) wrote:
>
>
>[...]
>
>> The second is that there was almost no visible _movement_
>> until people who _were_ radicals started coming out of the
>> Civil Rights, New Left, and hippie communities where they
>> had picked up radical ideas like equality, participatory
>> democracy, and consciousness-raising, but found that the
>> men in those communities had no intention of allowing
>> these to apply to the condition of women.
>>
>> If one is not careful in one's dichotomizing, it will turn
>> out that the mainstream or liberal feminists did the
>> coopting, and we wouldn't want that to happen, would we?
>> --
>> >< Gordon Fitch >< g...@panix.com ><
>
>This is just another retread of Reagan's Evil Empire talk. Attack ,
>attack, attack. Don't ask questions. Just attack. We are in conflict
>with the ultimate evil. Attack. Only a traitor would ask questions.
>Attack! Of course they're guilty--they've been accused. And of course
>they're men. Don't you love your country/sisterhood? Attack!
What?! I see no rational connection between your paragraph and
Gordon's. None whatsoever. I see nothing in yours but hysterical
ranting.
>
>Ten years ago I met self-identified feminists who were not irrational
>bigots. My friends and I did not have time for the anti-men, womens'
>irresponsibilty movement. We did not have time for mind control or
>liberal guilt. Now most self-identified feminists on college campuses are
>direct imitations of Ronald Reagan and the Moral Majority. The movement
>has indeed been kidnapped; not by men but by reactionary women. The right
>wing (perhaps I should call them the other right wing) should offer thanks
>to the Gender Feminists for all their help.
Can you give some precise examples instead of the above? Please?
>
>SunCat>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> kam...@ibm.cl.msu.edu
Barbara
=v=
> to reading the book?
=v= Gordon has already mentioned that he hasn't read the book.
> I am confident that someone of your unimpeachable intellectual
> integrity would not devote large amounts of material to what
> "her book is" without having read it.
=v= This is an _ad_hominem_ argument. Gordon has clearly
gathered enough information from these newsgroups to ascertain
relevant information about the book. He's doing a damn good
job, because even without having read the book, he's describing
it flawlessly.
=v= Of course, this *is* a particularly transparent book.
<_Jym_>
U41...@uicvm.uic.edu
>
><U41...@uicvm.uic.edu> writes:
>
>>In article <395mms$b...@crcnis1.unl.edu>, harb...@unlinfo.unl.edu (gerry son) says:
>harbi
>>>
>>>but her book doesn't stand or fall by that definition. The
>>>gender/equity feminist line being fuzzy does not invalidate the
>>>distinction. And the major thrust (gosh, that's so phallocentric) of
>>>her book, that feminism has been coopted by an extreme ideology (or
>>>ideologies) which
>>>has been intolerant of opposition and cavalier with the truth, has not
>>>been challenged here.
>>no evidence has been given for it so it is hard to give a more detailed
>>response than "has not." I have mentioned before what seems to be a
>>rather sharp disconnect between her assertions and her evidence for them,
>>and this seems to fit the same pattern. Does the evidence of errors in
>>various writers prove thsi assertion (or even give minimal evidence for it)?
>
>There are three statements here; about co-opting, about the hostility,
>and about respect for the truth. I can substantiate that she's given
>evidence for (II) and (III) by citing literally tens of pages of examples
>of each. So presumably you're challenging (I).
Actually I am challenging all three. Note that since my criticism of her
is that the evidence she gives is disconnected from the conclusions she draws
I am not doubting that she claims to give evidence, but that the evidence
that I have seen does not in fact support these claims.
Take claim II. The claim that this second wave is characterized by
hostility can be taken in two ways. The first is that it is a defining
feature of gender feminists that they are hostile. But Wolf is pretty
clearly not hostile, nor have I seen any evidence that Faludi is and these
are the two most discussed cases. I know you are against defining definitions
so you will probably favor the second way, namely that there is more hostility
in the second wave of feminism than in the first. (I don't deny that there
is hostility in feminism, but there is just as clearly hostility in the
opposition to feminism, but that does not justify labelling anti-feminism
as hostile as a whole. Clearly citing some examples of the hostility
of some anti-feminists as proof of the hostility of the movement is possible
but inaccurate). The problem with the increased hostility claim is that it
appears to be false. As Fitch has pointed out elsewhere, when people on this
group want to prove the hostility of feminism they tend to pull out examples
from the first wave. To point out examples from recent feminists without
showing how it is comprehensive (the first standard) or comparing it to
the relevant comparison groups (the second standard) is not to give real
evidence. It is somewhat like arguing that chewing gum causes cancer by
giving examples of people with cancer who chew gum. Regardless, the reason
I have not criticized the hostility argument before is that I still haven't
seen even passaable evidence for that claim.
Claim III I again assume that the rhetorical content is not intended
to be ignored. So saying they have a lack of respect for the truth does
not simply mean they say false things (Kant who had an almost reverent
respect for the truth said false things) but that they do so either knowingly
or without real concern for whether what they say is true or not. Clearly
(I hope it is clear) a mere list of factual errors supports the weaker claim,
but not the interesting stringer claim without adding something. That
something could be evidence that they knew their claims to be false, or
an argument that one could not reasonably make that error without a lack of
concern for the truth, or that the number of errors is somehow disproportional
to what could be expected from a group with respect for the truth making
the kinds of mistakes that anyone can make (like trying to make inferences
about how Gaussians behave in their limits from mental pictorial
representations).
Here is the evidence that has been pur forth in this group (and that Sommers
uses on talk shows). Wolf cited a figure on anorexia which was false but
had appeared previously in several sources. When she found out that the
figure was wrong she quickly had it changed for the next addition. (It is
possible that Sommers was the one that informed Wolf of the mistake although
Sommers claims to have informed her on s date after the copyright date on
Wolf's correction I assume we can take it that even if Sommers is wrong
about the date or her involvement it does not prove a lack of respect for the
truth on her part.)
How does this stack up as evidence? Laughable seems to be the best
adjective. It does suggest a willingness to lower ones standards for
ideological reasons, but on the part of Wolf's critics not on the part of
Wolf. Imagine she actually waited until she found out the statistic was
wrong before she changed it.
What about the evidence for Faludi's dishonesty? From a book full
of statistics it has been claimed here without argument that her figure
for pay inequity is inaccurate. It has also been argued that one of her
parenthetical remarks although strictly speaking true could easily be
misread in a way that is misleading. This is actually better than the
criticism of Wolf although only slightly. It is at least consistent
with what has been printed here that she hopes people will misread
the passage and get teh wrong idea. To show this is the case one would
need a careful analysis of the context of the remark. If she is arguing
that the view about Down's Syndrome is prevelant in the field, or that
it is conception that does not pose a risk, then she is clearly being
dishonest. Of course neither of these things apply. If she is arguing
that minor and inaccurate studies which tell against women getting careers
are turned into major stories, while the same kinds of articles which
oppose this view do not then she is not being dishonest and the criticism
requires unjustifiably misreading her remarks in a way that reflects badly
on her. Since the marraige/terrorism study fits the description above and
was the most referred to point in her book I am inclined to give her the
benefit of the doubt. Proving that being dishonest is not inconsistent
with the passage as quoted in limited context is a far distance from
proving that she has little regard for the truth.
Since the above is all of the evidence I have seen for the dishonesty
claim, and it seems likely that people are not purposely picking Sommers
worst examples, I still have seen no real evidence for claim III.
>
>We were talking about Sommers, correct? Not her supporters.
>
>> Is it a
>> claim about faculty appointments and talks? In current philosophy there is
>a
>>serious split between what are called "analytic" and "continental"
>philosophy.
>>The biggest talks as far as attracting crowds from outside the academic
>>establishment tend to be continental philosophers like Derrida and Habermas.
>
>Oh God let's not discuss Derrida.
>
>[recounting the analytic/continental feud in philosophy. BTW, I
>used to be at Stony Brook. You may be aware of what happened there]
>
>>Is the surprising thing that Sommers
>>has proven that academic feminists are like other academic groups. They
>>actually believe their views and tend to think more highly of people who
>agree
>>with them? Certainly that kind of thing would never happen in a Chemistry
>>department.
>
>No, it wouldn't. The idea that physical chemists would dominate a
>department to the total exclusion of organic chemists is bizarre, for
>example. It's rare even to see disagreement on a single hire about which field
>one should hire from. Everyone knows we need balance.
>
>But then the more I see of life outside the sciences, the more I
>realise the inhabitants of former Yugoslavia are doing a damn fine job
>under difficult conditions.
Every department requires balance, but what counts as balance will
depend upon the field and the size of the department. I brought up
Derrida not because I want to discuss his philosophy but because within
the realm of philosophy I want to learn almost every aspect of analytic
philosophy before I worry about Derrida. Accordingly it makes sense
to attend a University that has a balanced program in analytic philosophy.
It also makes sense to gather people who are working in related fields
together so that there can be fruitful interaction. The Chicago area has
about a dozen philosphers of science all of them work in the area of
quantum mechanics. None work in biology which is supposed to be a hotter
area. But the the two types of philosophers would wind up teaching the
same classes anyway, so it makes sense to have people who can work
together and have fruitful discussion groups which we do.
That people working on specific problems in feminism tend to congregate
is no great surprise or conspiracy.
>
>>Politics was injected
>>into academic hiring when Aristotle was passed over to replace Plato as head
>>of the Academy. The whole tenure process is an acknowledgement that academia
>>can at best minimize the politics.)
>
>I find this argument profoundly depressing, in that it confirms my
>already jaundiced view of the rest of the academy. I would be
>prepared to admit my experiences with my colleagues in the humanities
>have prejudiced me inordinately against their ethics, scholarship and
>even intelligence. It's sad to hear my prejudices confirmed and even
>held to be the way it has to be.
You seem to be suggesting that this kind of argument does not apply
to the sciences. The history of science rather suggests otherwise.
(I have recently submitted an article to a physics journal which was
suggested to me by a more experienced physics professor, so it has
only slowly been becoming clear to me why this particular journal
is more likely to want to print an article on the particlular topic
I wrote on and with the perspective I wrote from.
>
>> If this is not what the coopting invovles, then what does it involve.
>> Your hero Popper's main contribution to philosophy was his attack on
>theories
>>that are so loosely worded that they shrug off attack by simply making r
>whateve
>>part of the argument is attacked inessential to the argument.
>
>It was one of his contributions, yes. And he's not my hero. He's a
>philosopher of science for whom I have a non-zero amount of respect.
>(Quite a distinction, actually, when you consider the prevalence of
>post-modernism in some circles)
>
>> I'm guessing
>>that your response to Gordon's post will be that the coopting is not what is
>>essential so how this group came to power doesn't matter, which from the
>sense
>>of what is important is true, but at some point if it is Sommers argument g
>bein
>>words should actually be usable.
>
>Bad guess.
>
>It is true that Sommers doesn't chart the history of the cooption of
>the academy in any way; she simply says it has happened. You seem to
>be saying yes, it's happened, and it's a normal and natural thing.
>I'll agree that at the moment, while neither normal or natural, it's
>par for the course. So you've conceded point I, and what are we
>arguing about?
Does coopting simply mean replacing as the prevalent view? If so we
are arguing about nothing but who cares if these feminists have become
the prevalent thinkers in the field. Good for them. If it wasn't them
it would be someone else. Sommers is presumably working to coopt it back.
Although currently working in the philosophy of science I have dreams
of some day coopting the field of language back to a basis of private
languages and away from the usage crowd, why? Because I think that the
arguments against private languages stink, and that private languages
provide a better basis for understanding communication. This is not
simply normal or natural, I don't see how else the field of knowledge
could move. I assume you are including something more for coopting
then arguing for ones view and convincing people that one is right.
If so then we may be back to disagreeing as soon as you explain what the
something else is and why you think it is present in academic feminism.
>
>
>
>
>--
>Gerry Harbison, Associate Professor of Chemistry
>Official Spokesman for the University of Nebraska, Lincoln - yeah right
>I know I should say no/But it's kinda hard when she's ready to go/I may be
>dumb, but I'm not a dweeb/I'm just a sucker with no self-esteem - Offspring
Johannes Swarts
>In article <38ohpp$5...@crcnis1.unl.edu> harb...@unlinfo.unl.edu (gerry harbison) writes:
>> >> =o= Okay, scholars, essay time: Who, specifically, uses the
>> >> terms "heteropatriarchy" or "sex/gender system?" How influen-
>> >> tial is this particular nomenclature?
>>
>> The term patriarchy (evientdently the hetero- was tacked on to give
>> gay men an out) dates at least to Engels and Malinowsky.
[stuff deleted]...
Heey, let's just go for the gusto!!! I vote for caucasoid eurohetero-
patriarchy. That way, the oppressors will really know who they are,
and everyone else can get busy feeling victimized...
hans
Richard Harter
>> Uh, Gordon, does this mean that you've actually got around
>> to reading the book?
>=v= Gordon has already mentioned that he hasn't read the book.
You misapprehend. Gordon *had* mentioned that he *had* not read the book.
I was inquiring as to whether he has now read the book since then.
>> I am confident that someone of your unimpeachable intellectual
>> integrity would not devote large amounts of material to what
>> "her book is" without having read it.
>=v= This is an _ad_hominem_ argument.
You misapprehend. There is no argument at all here. My remarks were
simply a commentary on Gordon's posting style and contents. If you
were to say that my comments were heavy handed, pretentious, sarcastic,
and irrelevent, you would have a point.
>Gordon has clearly
>gathered enough information from these newsgroups to ascertain
>relevant information about the book. He's doing a damn good
>job, because even without having read the book, he's describing
>it flawlessly.
>=v= Of course, this *is* a particularly transparent book.
It is a fact that that this is your opinion. It is also a fact that
I think that your opinion is worthless. Mind you, this is not on
the grounds of the particular positions you take, but because I have
a low opinion of your general incompetence in reasoning and understanding
what you read. I expect that you disagree.
--
There are features that should not be used. | Richard Harter, SMDS Inc.
There are concepts that should not be exploited.| Phone: 508-369-7398
There are problems that should not be solved. | SMDS Inc. PO Box 555
There are programs that should not be written. | Concord MA 01742