Welcome to the second installment in a continuing series on fallacies in feminist thought. My last post examined some of the various fallacies feminist use in their arguments. This will go deeper, examining some of the fallacies which serve as the foundation in feminist thought.
Of all the fallacies which underscore feminist thought, the most invoked, and at the same time least examined are the related concepts of "privilege" and "patriarchy".
Patriarchy is defined by the "Finally a feminism 101 blog" as
Patriarchy is an ancient and ongoing social system based on traditions of elitism (a hierarchy of inferiority's), privilege and the subjugation of women via strict gender expectations which constrain individualist expressions. Some societies are more patriarchal than others, but patriarchal social traditions are universal in human societies.
While privilege is defined as.......
Well actually despite looking for most of the day I cant actually find a definition of "privilege" as its used in the "studies" classes and by feminists.(IE women's studies, minority studies etc) Its more of a nebulous concept than anything that's ever clearly defined.
In and of itself this should raise red flags. Anytime an ill defined and nebulous concept is used to "prove" something your spider sense should start tingling. Usually its simply a way to end discussion. By claiming that something called "privilege" exists, and that its bad, without ever actually defining what that thing is or what its defining characteristics are, it allows the person making the argument to tie anything and everything into that concept, which, due to its lack of a definition, is impossible to refute. As a result feminist's can cite anything they want as privilege as a way of dismissing your arguments without actually thinking, and no rational argument can "prove" its not.
Now on to why these concepts are fallacies. First of all look at the definition of Patriarchy again.
Patriarchy is an ancient and ongoing social system based on traditions of elitism (a hierarchy of inferiority's), privilege and the subjugation of women via strict gender expectations which constrain individualist expressions. Some societies are more patriarchal than others, but patriarchal social traditions are universal in human societies
First of notice the phrase "based on the traditions of elitism" which is defined in italics as "a hierarchy of inferiority's"
In plain English this means any system in which some people wield more power than others can be defined as a patriarchy. Practically speaking this means all societies are patriarchal since there never has and never will be a society in which everyone wields the exact same amount of power. This is in fact impossible because not all people have the same capabilities. Even in our egalitarian democratic society, different people wield different levels of power and/or influence. In fact using this definition, even the fictional paradise island, in which there are no men, is itself a patriarchal society because some women have more power and influence than others, and many of those women obtained that power through their accomplishments (most notably Wonder Woman)
No one in their right mind would argue that Bill gates and some random homeless guy do or in fact should have the same level of influence. The reason is that its perfectly clear that Mr Gates has earned a greater level of influence due to his greater level of accomplishment.
In feminist theory however there is no such concept as "earn". According to feminists Gates is a "patriarch" who wields disproportionate power due to his "privilege"
The fact that this "privilege" is not a privilege at all, but a reward for services rendered is considered irrelevant. It doesn't matter that his influence is a result of his accomplishments, what matters is that it is unique to Mr Gates. In other words if you run a business, have a degree, earn a large income, or in any other way benefit from your accomplishments in any way that others who have not accomplished what you have do not, you are "privileged"
In other words privilege is anything you have access to, for whatever reasons, that others don't also have access to regardless of why they don't have access to it.
So right off the bat we can see that the concept of patriarchy is off to a bad start. Its based on the assumption that social hierarchies are bad, and that every person should wield the exact same level of influence, power, and "privilege". And since Privilege is a concept based on the idea that nothing can be earned and that all advantages are given we can see that the concept of patriarchy is itself rooted in a number of fallacies.
The definition then goes on to say this terrible idea of using merit and accomplishment to determine who has the most power and influence is "rooted in the subjugation of women via strict gender expectations that constrain individualist expression"
As usual no evidence is given that this structure is "rooted in the subjugation of women" It is assumed to be true simply because it is stated to be true. No effort is put out to show that it is actually true. Despite there being no effort made to prove that hierarchical societies in which power and influence are distributed based on merit are rooted in the subjugation of women, it is made very explicit how said subjugation is expressed.
It is expressed, according to feminist theory, by creating "strict gender expectations that constrain individualist expression"
First off the word "creating" implies that this "expectation" is artificial, that is to say if we were not taught to expect women to act like women we would not do so. It assumes that an alien who comes down to earth with no prior expectations (assume its an asexual alien)and simply observes men and women would come to the conclusion that there are no general differences between the sexes and the way in which they act.
It is then asserted that by "creating" the expectation that women will act like women and men will act like men, we are somehow "constraining individualist expression". Despite the fact that it is quite possible to expect a woman to act in a feminine manner yet not constrain her from acting in a masculine manner, the two are equated as having a casual link.
In other words if you expect a woman to have a greater interest in watching "the View" than in watching Monday night football, it automatically causes her to be unable to watch Monday night football.
SO at the end we are left with a theory that a society in which power is unequally distributed (which is bad) based on peoples accomplishments (which doesn't exist as all things are actually given) "subjugates women" by expecting them to act like women which in and of itself causes those who wish to do so to be unable to act more like men if they so choose.
No wonder it takes semesters of "women studies" before someone can understand, much less believe, such theories.
More Randian villains
2 hours ago
2 comments:
Of all the fallacies which underscore feminist thought, the most invoked, and at the same time least examined are the related concepts of "privilege" and "patriarchy".
It is hysterically funny to me that you would call these concepts "unexamined", when entire books have been written about them.
While privilege is defined as.......
"Male privilege is a term used to describe the rights allegedly granted to the male population in society on the basis of their biological sex. The female, transsexual, transgender, and sometimes the gay male populations, are usually denied these rights, but females may have other rights not granted to males."
I had to go all the way to Wikipedia for that. Damn, that was a tough 90 seconds of consulting references.
Of course, had you taken two minutes to actually consult sources before opening your bazoo, you couldn't write your vaguely insulting next paragraph.
All arguments proceed from axioms or givens, which are ill-defined and nebulous concepts.
In plain English this means any system in which some people wield more power than others can be defined as a patriarchy.
No. Such a system must feature " the subjugation of women via strict gender expectations which constrain individualist expressions." Note use of the word "and" in the definition you quote. Jackass.
. The reason is that its perfectly clear that Mr Gates has earned a greater level of influence due to his greater level of accomplishment.
Bill Gates was a Harvard legacy who came from a privileged background. I fail to see how he "earned" the right to be born into a family with wealth and connections.
Mr. Gates has, in fact, created most of his own fortune. Others with a comparable background have not done as well. But Mr. Gates had advantages that most people simply do not.
In other words privilege is anything you have access to, for whatever reasons, that others don't also have access to regardless of why they don't have access to it.
Some privilege is earned, some is not. Most discussions of privilege in the context of feminism centers on unearned privilege. I happen to have been born white, male, disabled and American. I chose none of those things and it would be disingenuous to pretend I did.
It's based on the assumption that social hierarchies are bad, and that every person should wield the exact same level of influence, power, and "privilege".
No, it isn't. The subjugation of women is bad. Insofar as privilege contributes to the subjugation of women, privilege is used in the service of bad things.
The definition then goes on to say this terrible idea of using merit and accomplishment to determine who has the most power and influence...
We don't live in a strict meritocracy. If we did, no one would have advantages they didn't earn. Some people have inherited wealth and some do not. QED.
Many people, some of whom are feminists, believe in a meritocratic ideal and examine the ways in which society falls short of that ideal.
In other words if you expect a woman to have a greater interest in watching "the View" than in watching Monday night football, it automatically causes her to be unable to watch Monday night football.
No, but it makes it more difficult for her to choose to watch football if you put the channel on "The View" and don't give her the remote.
It assumes that an alien who comes down to earth with no prior expectations (assume its an asexual alien)and simply observes men and women would come to the conclusion that there are no general differences between the sexes and the way in which they act.
You have it exactly backwards. The feminist contention is that such an alien would notice differences in the sexes, and conclude that many of those differences are socially imposed.
No wonder it takes semesters of "women studies" before someone can understand, much less believe, such theories.
Yeah, anything too complicated to explain in less than a semester must be wrong. Like tensor calculus.
Rational Mad Man: "First of notice the phrase "based on the traditions of elitism" which is defined in italics as "a hierarchy of inferiority's"
In plain English this means any system in which some people wield more power than others can be defined as a patriarchy. Practically speaking this means all societies are patriarchal since there never has and never will be a society in which everyone wields the exact same amount of power. This is in fact impossible because not all people have the same capabilities. Even in our egalitarian democratic society, different people wield different levels of power and/or influence. In fact using this definition, even the fictional paradise island, in which there are no men, is itself a patriarchal society because some women have more power and influence than others, and many of those women obtained that power through their accomplishments (most notably Wonder Woman)"
You cut the sentence off before it was even done, thereby cutting the idea it conveys in half. If you continued reading you would have read: "...privilege and the subjugation of women via strict gender expectations which constrain individualist expressions."
You are wrongly conflating any system which has traditions of elitism with a patriarchy. According to this definition patriarchy must also be based on subjugation of women via strict gender expectations. Patriarchy is a gender relative form of inequality. Not every unequal system is a patriarchy, but every patriarchy is unequal.
Rational Mad Man: "So right off the bat we can see that the concept of patriarchy is off to a bad start. Its based on the assumption that social hierarchies are bad, and that every person should wield the exact same level of influence, power, and "privilege". And since Privilege is a concept based on the idea that nothing can be earned and that all advantages are given we can see that the concept of patriarchy is itself rooted in a number of fallacies."
You are a setting up a mighty fine strawman for yourself here. You said yourself that you couldn't find any good definitions of "privilege" so now you're making one up to fit your argument! Noone ever equated privilege to properly earned influence except you!
Rational Mad Man: "First off the word "creating" implies that this "expectation" is artificial..."
Pendantry: Well you inserted the word "creating" there, the definition uses "via".
Otherwise your point is well made here. The differences between the sexes are indeed real and innate. But the strict gender expectations you mention aren't along the lines of "expecting a woman to act like a woman". The subjugation comes from the definition of what a woman should act like. The traditional view of a woman's role in most cultures was that she was inferior to the man in every way: physically, mentally, and spiritually. Even today we wrongly conflate women and certain negative characteristics which are not inherent to their sex or gender.
There's nothing wrong with expecting a woman to act like a woman. The problem lies with what you define as woman's behavior.
As an analogy: you can expect a black person to act like a black person, but what do black people act like? There are indeed some traits which are common to many black people--some biological, some cultural--but even delving into these definitions is unhelpful borderline discriminatory behavior.
Why would we want to be able to paint all women, or all black people with a broad brush? How is this intelligent behavior that should be encouraged? Though it's not wrong to expect a woman to act like a woman, why can't we just see each other as people first and foremost?
Rational Mad Man: "SO at the end we are left with a theory that a society in which power is unequally distributed (which is bad) based on peoples accomplishments (which doesn't exist as all things are actually given) "subjugates women" by expecting them to act like women which in and of itself causes those who wish to do so to be unable to act more like men if they so choose."
A society in which power is unequally distributed on the basis of sex IS bad!! What is not bad is a society in which the unequal distribution of power is based on merit. What you have not shown is that feminist theory does not believe in a meritocratic society. You set up some mighty fine strawmen for yourself here. If this was a running debate with quotes from people suggesting these opinions you're arguing against, that'd be one thing. But it seems to me as if your opponent is largely fictional, or at least not present. You bitch about the lack of evidence for feminist theories but this seems like a bunch of armchair philosophy on your side as well. Who is making these arguments that you are attacking? And where is your support for your arguments?
Post a Comment