A common misconception among people (even feminists themselves) who are less familiar with the terminology of feminist theory is that radical feminism is a generic term for extremist or fringe feminism. In reality, it is an actual kind of feminism with actual beliefs. It is indeed more extreme than some other kinds of feminism (notably liberal feminism), but that doesn’t make it fringe or non-mainstream.
Radical feminism has classically been one of the two main kinds of feminism in America and Britain, alongside liberal feminism in the former and socialist feminism in the latter . Socialist feminism lost ground in the 1990s, but “liberal feminism and radical feminism remain strong currents in feminist political thought” .
Radical feminism provides the “bulwark of theoretical thought in feminism”, acting as an “important foundation” for other varieties . It is a more “indigenous” feminism, less grounded in other ideologies than liberal and socialist feminism are .
Continue reading “Radical Feminism Is Not Fringe Feminism”
Wikipedia describes horseshoe theory as the idea that the far left and far right, rather than being opposites, actually resemble each other. It’s often used to compare the totalitarian left (communism) with the totalitarian right (fascism). On this page I look at horseshoe theory and identity politics, comparing the social justice left and the alt-right.
Continue reading “Horseshoe Theory: the Social Justice Left on Men, and the Alt-Right on Jews and Blacks”
Title IX (of the Education Amendments of 1972) prohibits discrimination based on sex at federally-funded educational institutions in the United States. Historically most known for ensuring equality between male and female athletics programs, in August of 2011 it was invoked to apply a new policy for sexual assault to all federally-funded universities and colleges. The “dear colleague” letter (pdf) from the Office for Civil Rights of the U.S. Department of Education under the Obama administration defines acts of sexual violence (rape, sexual assault, etc.) as “discrimination based on sex”. Among other policies, this letter mandates that universities and colleges (if they want to keep federal funding) investigate claims of sexual assault made by students and apply the “preponderance of evidence” standard when determining guilt.
Continue reading “Title IX and Low Standards of Evidence for Campus Sexual Assault”
There’s a saying going around that “political correctness is just common decency”. If the issue in question is not calling groups by names that they consider demeaning or insulting (e.g. not saying the word “tranny” for someone who’s transgender) then that is just common decency, but political correctness is so much more than that. In a 2015 article, American journalist Jonathan Chait calls political correctness a “style of politics in which the more radical members of the left attempt to regulate political discourse by defining opposing views as bigoted and illegitimate”, which involves treating “even faintly unpleasant ideas or behaviors as full-scale offenses”.
Continue reading ““Sexist! Racist! Homophobe!” Political Correctness and Illegitimate Speech”
Recently I came across a paper called “Wikipedia’s Politics of Exclusion: Gender, Epistemology, and Feminist Rhetorical (In)action” (2015, published in Computers and Composition 37) where feminist academic Leigh Gruwell tackles Wikipedia’s “gender gap”: only 13% of its editors are women. That’s a valid topic to discuss, but she takes it in a very frightening direction. She argues that Wikipedia’s standards on verifiability and objectivity are exclusionary, and that the subjective knowledge of women and feminists should be given a privileged status.
Continue reading “A Look at One Feminist’s Critique of Wikipedia, Verifiability, and Objectivity”
The word “patriarchy” is used by many feminists to refer to the system of gender (the differences in status, condition, and treatment that depend on whether you’re a man or a woman) in our society. This page is a short explanation of why I don’t use the term, with reference both to stronger definitions and weaker definitions of it.
Continue reading “Why I Reject the Term “Patriarchy””
One of the ugliest elements of the social justice movement is their differing standard of treatment for different demographic groups. Members of “privileged” or “oppressor” groups (especially men, white people, and straight people) are considered acceptable targets for various types of treatment (generalizations, employment discrimination, identity-related insults, hatred, and dismissing an opinion because of identity) that would not be tolerated for “sympathy-worthy” groups, especially women, those who aren’t white, and those who aren’t straight. Many people become disillusioned with the social justice movement after realizing that in their view of the world, acceptable treatment depends less on the action itself and more on what group you’re in.
Continue reading “Social Justice’s Punching Bags: Men, White People, Straight People”