We are born a particular sex, and the society we live in shapes us into gender roles. Those roles, and the society which shapes them are very rigid. The chances of us conforming to a standard role is very high.
The whole thing is written in scientific language. For the scientifically inclined, it was like a second order differential equation with a set of eigenstates determined by initial constraints. That took about 8 pages in social science speak, but the copy over of scientific language into a social science framework was unmistakable. If you don't understand the above, don't worry, it's superfluous to the question unless you are a scientist.
There were two things implicit in the text. The first was that from a position of control, within the government, or an institution - the academic feminist could alter the constraints, and therefore change gender norms to suit her own preferences. The woman behind the screen. The second was that her assumptions, motivated from a moral desire for equality, were implicitly justified.
The model was actually quite scientific but the framing of it certainly wasn't. A scientific model uses an abstract image (physical law expressed in maths) which is them compared experimentally against observed reality. The better those abstractions describe what is observed, the more valued the theory.
These feminist writers, having formed an abstraction seemed to then forget about the testing against reality part, but were very keen to talk about how their mechanism should be used to manipulate reality to achieve their own ends.
Very much the same criticisms that 1970s feminists leveled at bureaucracy as an ';instrument of the Patriarchy';.
To be fair here, my criticism is aimed at specific academic authors, and not the feminist movement in general. I would be interested especially in answers from people who have any direct involvement with the academic side of feminism.
Are academic feminists becoming as elitist as their old oppressors?Are academic feminists becoming as elitist as their old oppressors?
Hi Twilight :)
lol... by the sound of it, the neoclassical economists are not alone in trying to impress us with their warped representations of reality, pretending to be scientific and using made-up mathematics for models to support their worn out hack theories and elitist opinions of how the world works. (arghh, I hated studying economics at uni!)
I dunno... how seriously can you take this stuff? And WHY on Earth were you reading it? Tired old academics just write for other tired old academics. They're trapped in an eternal vortex of intellectual one-upmanship. Or they could just be writing their thesis for a PHD, which would necessitate being as complex and technical as required.
There might be some good points in some of it but you might need a translation - academic writing was never meant to convey meaning to the non-expert. They're just writing for each other, not for us, I reckon. (Would you like to browse MY thesis too sometime? It's on tax economics... mindbogglingly dull as dishwater, and elitist as all h*ll, but gripping revolutionary stuff at heart! hehehe)Are academic feminists becoming as elitist as their old oppressors?
I am not a scientist and I understood your comment. It really could be said with few words. Edit. I agree with you. What I can't stand about Feminism is I must have the same opinion and think according to feminist movement. Where did the our rights go?
If by ';elitist'; you mean thinking they know it all, and don't need to be reviewed in their work then from what i've seen (not very much) yes.
It is the very nature of their work that they can get away with that.
It'd be truly interesting to read a sociology paper which could hold its own in a contest of scientifically esoteric language against a series of Science papers published in Nature.
To be blunt, though, my respect for sociologists has never been great. To me, this seems more like an instance the rule than being an exception.
Wonderful write up, by the way.
';Are academic feminists becoming as elitist as their old oppressors?';
Most likely, but the way I would describe it is that ';feminism has become an academic standard';, because people may not actually be feminists themselves but have to teach at academic faculties that adopt feminist structures within their methods of grading students.
Maybe feminism is like philosophy. Maybe it's something that can't be tested. Maybe it would moved to psychology if there is a bunch of testing involved. I think it's like pragmatism, I mean the gender equality.
The key point here is that there is a distinction between real science (physics, chemistry, biology) and pseudo science (all social sciences).
Whilst I respect the intelligence of people who study and teach humanities I think that they too often hijack the language of real science to give a spurious impression to the uneducated that their opinions are just as reliable as physical laws.
Why would this be happening? Is this a response to a demand for a more science centred methodology for social science research, or why?
I mean if anyone can read these works (I guess they're getting published) and come to the same conclusion as you, wouldn't making the pinhead bigger in an attempt to cram a few more angels on board be easily discovered?
PS: Name names?
Cheers :-)
My only disagreement with what you have written (which may I remark is very well written) is that you are under the impression that Feminism was anything other than elitist from the very start.
I have had a very slight involvement with academic Feminism. It's very like all the other sorts, but it has more technical jargon and clich茅s to justify it's bad behaviour.
You are very insightful in your critique, where you say:
(quote) These feminist writers, having formed an abstraction seemed to then forget about the testing against reality part, but were very keen to talk about how their mechanism should be used to manipulate reality to achieve their own ends (unquote)
YES, Social Engineering. The word ';equality'; means whatever the Feminists want it to mean, to pick but one example.
CS Lewis referred to such Societal Engineers in his excellent essay ';the Abolition of Man';. Such a system is inherently elitist and inherently anti-democratic. It sets up the idea that ordinary people cannot be trusted to look after their own ideas, so they have to be stripped of that power. Feminism has excelled at doing this.
But surely you should expect such a progression?
Look at every Revolution (I do not count the American Revolution, because that was part independence movement, part aristocratic take-over and part a continuation of the old British - French wars)
The French Revolution: due to a drop in the amount of sunlight reaching the surface of the Earth, the French agricultural sector failed year after year. The French Aristocracy decided to overthrow the King. They did so by using democratic assemblies as a form of tool and excuse and promptly became much worse than the King. The democratic assemblies then overthrew the aristocracy and - in the name of Freedom, Equality and Brotherhood, started a Reign of Terror under Maximilian Robespierre. Robespierre set up the Reign of Terror under his political party, the Jacobins and they set up a Committee for Public Safety.
This is very similar to the Feminists use of the word ';equality'; to justify the worst, least equal treatment handed out in a very long time to an entire gender.
In France, the King (who wasn't good but wasn't that bad either) was replaced by the aristocracy (who were bad and tending to worse) then they were replaced by the Reign of Terror (which was the worst) and then that was overthrown by Napoleon, who introduced some sort of peace by directing the destructive energies outwards.
The Russian Revolution followed a similar pattern: the Tsar was deposed, then a new government by the incompetent and corrupt Kerensky proved worse than the Tsar, so Kerensky was overthrown and the Bolsheviks (the Communists) came to power and proved to the worst of the lot.
So, too, with Feminism. They replaced the old order (which wasn't great but wasn't bad either) with something that got steadily worse until today where it's getting steadily worse all the time. On each occasion, the ';new Feminism'; has promised to return to it's old ';equalitarian'; roots and it has simply redefined the word ';equality'; to suit itself.
Many thanks for your input. It is good to see such calm cool thought amid the flamethrowers and the napalm used by the Feminists
elitism doesnt belong to one gender and, certainly, in no way can it be compared to oppression. so i am less concerned with academic feminists becoming elite as i am with them becoming like their old oppressors. i dont think academic feminists are oppressive at all. the field has grown, for sure, but there is currently a lot of academic debate on some of the older principles of feminism. for example, some now debate whether domestic violence is based on power. they now say factors like jealousy, anger and alcoholism play a role. altho, gender roles can differentiate these issues, too.
so, are feminists becoming elitist? yes, some are. again, i dont think elitism is all that harmful.
You must be crazy if you think I'm gonna read all that.
No comments:
Post a Comment