The feminist Christina Hoff Sommers discusses them below.
Second wave feminism had some very good ideas indeed and was, generally, a positive development.
Third wave feminism seems to be largely a betrayal of women and an outgrowth of the same rotten Postmodernism, identity politics, and cultural relativism that has poisoned the rest of the left. As Sommers documents, third wave feminism often also has the same contempt for facts that characterises Postmodernism.
Be careful with the anti-feminist movement. It is bankrolled by the same people who fund Libertarian propaganda.
ReplyDeleteChristina Hoff Sommers is the perfect example of this - just research the think-tanks she is connected with, like the American Enterprise Institute, and most especially, the Independent Womens Forum:
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Christina_Hoff_Sommers
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Independent_Women's_Forum
Here she was, involved with the IWF in the past:
http://web.archive.org/web/20070926225936/http://iwf.org/about_iwf/staff_list.asp
Please do not treat her as a reliable source. Make sure you find arguments she makes in written form, rather than YouTube videos (a lot easier to slip deceptive arguments past you, in YouTube videos rather than writing).
There are the same dangers, of taking her seriously without being on-guard, as there are with reading most Libertarian economic books without your guard up (e.g. the way a lot of Lib/Austrian material, is designed to make you 'learn by osmosis', through repeating the same propagandised viewpoints/attitudes so often, with such obfuscated arguments, that your guard relents and it begins to sink in despite fallacious arguments).
That said, Hoff and groups like the IWF, are extremely interesting if you look at them from the perspective of: Why are Libertarians like the Koch's funding them?
My impression of the MRA/anti-feminist movements recent rise in 'loudness', is that they are probably being bankrolled in the same way as tea-partiers - in order to spur divide-and-conquer dynamics among the population and pollute online discussion away from more important issues (like economic justice issues - which social justice ties into deeply).
I see it in forums I frequent - where the MRA's display deceptive/soapboxing argument tactics, which are almost identical to what you see from the most ardent/fanatical free-market Libertarian types.
So - there is no way to prove it - but I would be exceptionally wary of the anti-feminist movement, as being partially an astroturf movement - funded and fuelled intellectually, by prominent Libertarian think-tanks.
As a grandparent, parent and individual, I'm not bankrolled by anybody. I don't need anybody else to support me in my belief that feminism is a social poison.
DeleteFeminists managed to convince me all by themselves just how toxic their ideology is.
LOL @"Bankrolled"
DeleteIf there were anyone "bankrolling" the MRM/Anti-Feminists, it would be a lot more visible and a lot more effective at this present time. As it is, we're not doing too shabby all things considered:
http://mankindglobalmedia.blogspot.com/p/you-hear-it-all-time-mras-arent-really.html
But your groundless assertion of a cabal supporting Men's Issues Friendly groups is exactly that. If there's any connection at all, it's because certain groups are the only one's listening to men. If progressives don't like it, they need to do some listening!
(1) your whole rant about Christina Hoff Sommers is the perfect example of the ad hominem fallacy.
ReplyDeleteSo she is affiliated with the American Enterprise Institute? Yes. That doesn't refute anything she said. That doesn't refute any of the important government or academic studies she cites to prove her case.
Also, in point of fact, she describes herself as:
"Fact:Former Sixties flower-child/socialist. Now (registered) Democrat--with libertarian leanings."
https://twitter.com/CHSommers/status/512223300828012545
(2) It is also very shoddy indeed that you call her an "anti-feminist". Are the Postmodernist/third wave feminists the only feminists according to you?
Did the first wave and second wave feminists disappear down the memory hole?
Is Germaine Greer an "anti-feminist" now she disagrees strongly with the third wave feminists on certain issues? lol...
(3) finally, it is very telling indeed you can't refute anything Sommers said.
In short your comment is a perfect example of the shoot the messenger tactic.
DeleteIf a left-wing democratic socialist made the same arguments about these myths, how would you respond?
Ad Hominem is not a fallacy when the credibility of a source is in question. I did not attack any of her arguments or aim to.
DeleteIf you want people to take your sources credibly, find credible sources - it's exactly the credibility of this source that is in question.
We both know the shoddy/deliberately-deceiving research Libertarian/Koch-funded think tanks are known for - so now that you are aware of her conflicted history, should find more credible sources for the same arguments (I'm interested in arguments critical of feminism - maybe the ones here have good merit - but if they do, surely there are better sources?).
I call her an anti-feminist as, like the MRA's, I view her as primarily being aimed at attacking feminism, not at broaching an alternative, and she has contributed to websites like 'A Voice For Men' in the past (run by the misogynist Paul Elam).
My use of the Libertarian label as well, is not due to her self-identification as you imply, but because she is known to be connected to institutes funded by the Koch propagandists - big difference.
As for refuting Sommers arguments, how can it be established that any of the 'myths' she puts forward, actually represent the feminist movement at all? (I'd agree that the 5th one is a valid criticism though)
That's the premise behind all her arguments - yet she has not supported that.
It's not even possible to identify specific groups that are meant to represent 'third wave' feminism - the movement is so fractured and divided, and not well documented, that trying to make generalizations about feminists today, isn't really possible.
Yet that's what the MRA movement and people like Sommers do: They tend to take the most extreme examples of radical feminism today, and generalize it as representative of the wider 'third wave' feminist movement.
Nonsense JohnB. Her credibility matters if you are asked to rely on her veracity or accuracy. Ususally this means 1) you are asked to trust a factual claim she makes or 2) you are asked to accept her judgment about something unknown to you. Neither is the case here. You just want to reject her argument based on her connections.
DeleteNonsense Ken B. She 1) makes factual claims and 2) judgments regarding issues which are superficially known to many people. These circumstances are sufficient to claim that credibility matters, even if You aren't explicitly asked for trust and acceptance. Nobody has enough resources, e.g. time, to check the veracity of most assertions one encounters, so choice of relevant and trustworthy sources is crucial.
DeleteB.S., Axl. Any person with the internet and patience and some basic background knowledge could find the data in 30 minutes.
DeleteE.g., the best Bureau of Justice Statistics data actually estimate the rate of sexual assault on campus is 6.1 per 1,000.
Even worse, off-campus the rate of sexual assault is 7.6 per 1,000 people, so it is actually safer on campuses than off them.
http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/rsavcaf9513.pdf
This discreits the campus rape myth.
(1) "I did not attack any of her arguments or aim to."
ReplyDeleteWait.... what!?? You don't even dispute the factual accuracy of her statements?
You admit that gender pay gap is a myth in the form currently stated by third wave feminists?
(2) "As for refuting Sommers arguments, how can it be established that any of the 'myths' she puts forward, actually represent the feminist movement at all? "
Jesus, this is laughable.. Third wave feminism is constantly saying that US campuses have a "rape culture" and their primary evidence for this is the claim that 1-in-5 women suffer rape.
But as Sommers notes this is based on a "Campus Sexual Assault Study" based on a (1) highly unrepresentative sample from 2 universities, (2) very low response rate, and (3) a broad, even ridiculously broad, definition of rape (e.g., "attempted forced kissing" counts as rape).
The best Bureau of Justice Statistics data actually estimate the rate of sexual assault on campus is 6.1 per 1,000!!
Even worse, off-campus the rate of sexual assault is 7.6 per 1,000 people, so it is actually safer on campuses than off them.
http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/rsavcaf9513.pdf
(3) "Ad Hominem is not a fallacy when the credibility of a source is in question."
Her sources are official government data and academic studies. You haven't demonstrated any problem with them.
You've only implied that anyone funded by Koch must be a liar or everything they say must be false. That is rubbish.
(4) Finally you didn't answer my question.
If a left-wing democratic socialist made the same arguments about these myths, how would you respond?
(1) While I didn't attack the arguments, I didn't advocate them either.
Delete(2) You're generalizing about the 'third wave' feminist movement. Where is the evidence, that the 1-in-5 figure is a statistic used by a prominent portion of the third-wave feminist movement? You'd have to do better here, than cite just a few individual feminists - you'd have to show it as representative of the wider movement.
Third-wave feminism isn't an homogenous entity that can be generalized about like that.
I don't have an opinion one way or the other on the actual statistics - but I do think insufficient evidence has been presented, to show them as representative of 'third wave feminism'.
(3) I was referring to Hoff herself. Again, my original post was not attacking her arguments, it was questioning her credibility.
(4) If I could show that left-wing democratic socialist, as having ties to a network of propaganda think tanks, and contributing to prominent MRA websites where the founder is known for his misandrist views - I'd respond exactly the same.
Next to that, I'd focus on my point, about unfounded generalizations being made about 'feminists', 'third wave feminist' etc. - as that is the primary fallacy used in all debates like this.
(1) "Where is the evidence, that the 1-in-5 figure is a statistic used by a prominent portion of the third-wave feminist movement?"
DeleteAll over the internet.
http://edition.cnn.com/2014/12/09/opinion/burleigh-feminism-rape-speaking-out/
http://www.spiked-online.com/newsite/article/Rolling-Stone-and-the-myth-of-a-rape-epidemic/16306#.Vp5tVXnVxD8
http://www.economist.com/news/united-states/21635500-folly-letting-amateurs-handle-serious-crimes-professors-judges
http://www.the-american-interest.com/2015/09/21/susan-brownmiller-heretic/
(2) As for Third Wave feminism, it is an open movement with a large number of feminist women who **openly self-identify** as such.
Here is a long list of names.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-wave_feminism
Problematically, there is no empirical support for any of the generalizations being made here.
ReplyDeleteHoff recounts five 'feminist myths', which she implies are generally assumed to be true by feminists. But nowhere do I see any empirical evidence that these myths are assumed to be true by over 50% of the population we can designate as 'feminist'. And something cannot be said definitively to be a general attribute of a population unless it can be shown definitively that over 50% of that population exhibits that attribute. (because if an attribute is NOT exhibited by over 50% of a population, that attribute cannot be said to be a 'general' feature of that population, as the number of members NOT exhibiting that feature outnumbers the members who DO within said population)
Until such evidence is produced and it is proven that over 50% of feminists uncritically believe these myths, there is no factual basis for Hoff's generalizations. (or for generalizations of a similar or dissimilar nature made by anyone else) Furthermore, anecdotal evidence cannot form the basis of a valid generalization (only a fallacious one), and the four articles you listed provide only anecdotes--instances of behavior by people identifying as feminist. None of them provide any documentation regarding the attributes and behavior of the feminist population *as a whole*, so we cannot say this behavior is (or is not) exhibited by all feminists, or even most feminists, or even all or most of third-wave feminists specifically. At least if we are going to adhere to standards of empirical rigor.
Now, if Hoff could provide statistical evidence about the feminist population as a whole, and based her generalizations about feminist beliefs off of that evidence, they would be demonstrably valid and it would be another story altogether. But she doesn't--which is largely indicative of the fact that there needs to be more statistical research done on the feminist population.
Because it's certainly not hard to find completely unreasonable feminists, as the articles you posted make clear. But it's also not hard to find reasonable ones. So until someone does the statistical work all we have is conflicting anecdotes, and anecdotes (to say nothing of conflicting anecdotes) about a population cannot provide the basis for valid generalizations about that population. Especially when it is so often the case with social movements that the smaller extreme factions of the movement also tend to be the loudest and most outspoken.
(1) Hoff recounts five 'feminist myths', which she implies are generally assumed to be true by feminists.
DeleteNo, by **third wave feminists**, not by all feminists.
If you had done your homework about Sommers and her work you would know this.
(2) "But nowhere do I see any empirical evidence that these myths are assumed to be true by over 50% of the population we can designate as 'feminist'."
Another absurd demand. No, she is talking about myths spun by **third wave feminists** and their supporters. The internet is filled to the brim with evidence of how such people do believe these myths.
(3) also, interesting is the way you dodge the actual myths to rant about Sommers.
You are right LK, but even if you weren't LachMioinsky's objection would just be pettifogging obscurantism. Even if one of these myths is only believed by 49% not 51% so what? They are widespread and influential. (And did she say more anyway?)
DeleteYes, she did say more. She called them "five feminist myths." Not "five third-wave feminist myths"; not "myths believed by some fraction of feminists", but "five feminist myths", full stop. If she meant something else, if she meant to say "five myths that some but not all feminists believe," or "five myths some but not all third-wave feminists believe" she should have clarified--you can't clarify for her, because you can't speak for her, because you don't know her or what she's thinking. None of us posting here do--so the only thing left to do is take her at her word.
DeleteFurthermore, you are the one being obscurantist here--namely, you are attempting to obscure the meaning of the word 'general' and what constitutes a valid generalization. By your logic I can say that "Americans generally vote Republican", because 48% of the country voted Republican in the last election. Nevermind that over 50% voted Democrat. Apparently saying "you can't say Americans generally vote Republican if over 50% of them don't vote Republican" is an "absurd demand".
But why stop there? According to your logic, I could then make a video that debunks five myths commonly held by 9 out of 10 Republican voters, and accurately title it "Five Myths American Voters Believe, Debunked".
Then when someone pops in and says "But over 50% of Americans didn't vote Republican in the last election, you're making an inaccurate generalization" I can simply respond by saying "Stop being an obscurantist. So what? Even if it's only 49%, it doesn't matter--it's widespread and influential. And did I say more anyway?"
To which I would hope the person would reply, "Yes you said more. You said 'American myths', not 'Republican myths' or 'myths that less than half of American voters believe'. You made an invalid generalization. If you meant otherwise, you should have been clearer."
Or are we going to go down the postmodernist route of "the definition of words and the criteria for valid logical inferences (such as generalizations) don't matter"?
LachMinsky's argument is twaddle again. Calling something "a feminist myth" does NOT mean "a myth all feminists believe". It means a myth which is particular to feminists. If I call prostate cancer a male disease I do not imply that if you are a male you have it, I imply the reverse, that if you have it you are (likely) a male. So CHS is quite correct to call these feminists myths, and LM is again engaging in pettifogging obscurantism.
Delete(This is the thread for "pettifogging". Many LachMinsky threads are.)
(1)
ReplyDeleteThe first and fourth article have no mention of that statistic. The second makes the same assertion you're trying to back, but doesn't say who is meant to be pushing that statistic (just presents the same generalization) - an equally unbacked claim.
The third article references unspecified 'activists' and says 'they' often reference the stat - generalizing that to all (third-wave-)feminists is again unsubstantiated.
You're citing incredibly weak sources, which either don't mention the stat, or just repeat an unbacked assertion. You need to re-evaluate the generalizations you're making about 'feminists' and 'third wave feminists' etc..
The core fallacy, again, from the entire MRA and anti-feminist movement is: Unbacked generalizations. They (in my view) repeat them endlessly, to try and get the generalizations to sink-in for others, through osmosis.
(2)
Okey - that is a good list (not a huge number of names, but still plenty), and I agree self-identification is a good marker for third-wave feminists. The problem now is: How many of them can be shown to hold the views Hoff attributes to them through generalizing?
Showing such views from only a handful of them, doesn't really show anything, given how easy it is to cherry pick (which is exactly what I think gets done in cases like this).
The problem then is: There are no statistics surveying the wider feminist/third-wave-feminist movement, to pin down empirically what their views are.
Do feminists/third-wave-feminists hold the views, that Hoff generalizes to them, in large enough numbers to justify the generalization? Given the lack of stats, the only answer is: We don't know.
People like Hoff and the MRA's take advantage of this ambiguity/unknown though, by opportunistically generalizing about the movement - even though they have no proof.
"Do feminists/third-wave-feminists hold the views, that Hoff generalizes to them, in large enough numbers to justify the generalization? Given the lack of stats, the only answer is: We don't know."
Deletelol.. "We don't know". You sound like a libertarian or other unreasonable cultist.
The internet is filled with evidence of a large number of third wave feminists who make the 1-in-5 (or sometimes 1-in-4) stat and talk about a rape culture on campus and who constantly speak of the gender pay gap etc. Even Obama was influenced by these people to spin the myth of the pay gap, and Bernie Sanders is convinced of a rape epidemic on America's campuses.
Youtube is filled with feminists like this. The third wave feminists blogs are filled with these claims. The third wave feminists talking heads spin the myths.
At the very least, there is a very large number of prominent third wave feminists who are the public face of the movement who say these things, but -- according to your bizarre thinking -- virtually none of the rank and fill third wave feminists do?? Even though the rank and file seem to give their support to the public activists? lol
"rank and file"
DeleteAt the very least, there is a very large number of prominent third wave feminists who are the public face of the movement who say these things, but -- according to your bizarre thinking -- virtually none of the rank and fill third wave feminists do?? Even though the rank and file seem to give their support to the public activists? lol
DeleteWell, we're getting somewhere now, in that you seem to be pinning the generalization down to more specific groups within the third-wave movement.
'A very large number', does not make a majority large enough to generalize about a whole group though. I didn't say 'virtually none' of the people in these groups, represent those views, either.
Given how newspapers these days deliberately produce clickbait garbage (and The Guardian is particularly bad on the feminist side of things, in this regard), this means they have an automatic tendency to cherry-pick the more extreme views/authors from the feminist movement (it makes them more money), which means the supposed 'public facing' (i.e. notable in news media) portion of the movement, can reasonably be said to have a high chance, of being an extremely skewed misrepresentation of the wider movement.
We're still lacking empirical-evidence/stats, even of what percentage of this 'public facing' portion of the movement, hold the views Hoff generalizes about - so even your argument here, fails to have evidence backing the generalization about the 'public facing' portion.
Anyway - I've had this debate dozens of times before, with other people, and I can see that it has started to follow the familiar pattern of: Me pointing out the lack of evidence backing generalizations, with the other person trying to buttress the generalizations without sufficient evidence (will leave others to decide, which is the more cult-like behaviour).
I'll leave it there so.
Let me make this easy for you. Show me a list with evidence of just 20 women who self-identity as "third wave feminists" and who reject:
Delete(1) the idea of a US rape culture, and
(2) the gender wage gap.
Good luck with that.
I'm guessing we'll never hear from you again. lol
Wow, that was some of the most intense confounding evasiveness i've seen in awhile to try to not really refute in awhile. "Pettifogging" would also apply.
DeleteDo we really need a public poll or survey of Austrian-Libertarians to make a 'generalization' that they believed QE would produce high inflation was going to happen, or that they subscribe to the Austrian Business Cycle Theory. No such poll exists, but it would be absolutely absurd to say that we shouldn't generalize their views when so many of their thought leaders and followers subscribe to those very beliefs. It's impossible not to hear that these are widespread beliefs among Austrian Libertarians.
Likewise for third-wave Feminists. One only needs to watch an MSNBC Feminist panel, or listen to an online conference of Feminists, or find almost anywhere on the internet to know that this is a widespread belief among ALL Feminist activists and professional Feminists, not just self-identified third-wavers. Self-identified Feminists, maybe not, as some of them are older and/or believe that the movement is still for "equality", "equal rights", "equal opportunity", "equality under the law", etc. When it's clear that third-wave or "gender Feminists" as CHS calls them do not advocate so.
To the first commenter
ReplyDeleteThe problem with trying to attack people for being associated with a particular think tank is that it becomes a matter of "who said" and not "what was said".
Many Christian apologists do not, for example, dismiss arguments of Richard Carrier on his New Testament scholarship just because he is a part of the New Atheism movement or because he is one of what LK calls the Regressive Left. They still take his arguments very seriously and address them with much caution.
That's true, but the distinction I'm making with think-tanks, is specifically about think-tanks where there is a lot of empirical evidence, of the think-tank deliberately putting out deliberate lies and propaganda, or linked to a network which does the same - i.e. when the think-tank is proven to be associated with untruthful statements or those that fund them.
DeleteI don't know Richard Carrier, but offhand, I don't think it could be said that he has connections to institutes/funders who promote lies like this.
This doesn't invalidate the arguments made by a source though, but what it does do, is it reduces the credibility of a source - such that if someone wants to use that source to back an argument (as LK does with Hoff here), it is reasonable to ask them to provide a more credible source.
Preferably while also addressing the arguments though ;) which I've attempted to do, by attacking the core premise behind those arguments, which generalizes about the (third-wave-)feminist movement.
"such that if someone wants to use that source to back an argument (as LK does with Hoff here), "
DeleteIn actuality, I don't regard Sommers as my source for her assertions, but the independent data/studies SHE CITES from government or academia, which aren't funded by some "evil" right wing or think tank, and which anybody could cite.
Once again, a straw man.
In actuality, I don't regard Sommers as my source for her assertions, but the independent data/studies SHE CITES
DeleteThis argument is invalid. Many pseudoscientists often refer to credible, per-reviewed sources, but their methodology relies on cherry picking, quote mining and many other distorsions.
PS Auto-Tune Rebuttal
Rubbish. You have not proved that she has engaged in cherry picking or mere quote mining out of context.
DeleteThird wave feminism is constantly saying that US campuses have a "rape culture" and their primary evidence for this is the claim that 1-in-5 women suffer rape.
But as Sommers notes this is based on a "Campus Sexual Assault Study" based on a (1) highly unrepresentative sample from 2 universities, (2) very low response rate, and (3) a broad, even ridiculously broad, definition of rape (e.g., "attempted forced kissing" counts as rape).
The best Bureau of Justice Statistics data actually estimate the rate of sexual assault on campus is 6.1 per 1,000. S
Even worse, off-campus the rate of sexual assault is 7.6 per 1,000 people, so it is actually safer on campuses than off them.
http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/rsavcaf9513.pdf
Sommers has not cherry picked her data.
Actually, there may be a bit of a categorical problem with CHS calling herself a "Feminist." She doesn't believe in Patriarchy theory for one. No major Feminist pundit from either the 2nd or 3rd waves seems to endorse her views. In fact, it's hard to find any real genuine Feminism in most of her rhetoric - at least not to the point where her views expressed couldn't very easily be held by people who refuse to identify as Feminists.
ReplyDeleteThe joke among MRA's is that Christina Hoff Sommers is a "Unicorn Feminist" - as not like any existing Feminist in the real world.
LK, you might be able to answer this for me: Are there any other Post-Keynesians like yourself who are critical of Feminism? It'd really help me in spreading the gospel of Keynes to MRA/Anti-Feminist groups, as I have already been trying to do.