GC Theory - Lecture 4
Adam Kostakis, that inexhaustible violinist and balalaika player, has posted the fourth of his weekly lectures on gynocentrism theory:
But go now and read this week's lecture in its entirety:
gynotheory.blogspot.com
-------------------------------------------------------
Note: the following is recommended as foundational reading in conjunction with the above:
www.4shared.com/document/Y7LmET5s/EfficientPoliticalWorldview.html
"We must not be swayed by feminist attempts to deny the universalizing tendency inherent to feminism. In their attempts to win the debate over what feminism is, feminists are notorious for abridging their own ideology to a nub of its whole, and presenting their support for - and your dissent from - feminism as resting entirely on a single issue. Let me give an example, in which you are confronted by the Appeal to Franchise. You have just stated that you do not support feminism. Your feminist opponent's next move is to reduce the entirety of feminism to women gaining the right to vote - thus implying that you must oppose this, since you claimed to oppose feminism. You must simply remind all onlookers that feminism is about more than this and cannot be reduced to a single item as she has tried to do. You can openly state your support for that single item - in this case, the vote - while nevertheless maintaining your antipathy towards feminism, this being in no way reducible to women's right to vote.How craftily he closes still further in upon the territory of feminist subjectivism. Why heavens, next thing you know he'll be telling us that non-feminists are free to define feminism according to alternative criteria, whether the feminists approve of this or not! Mercy sakes, what is the world coming to, when non-feminists get to speak their own true minds about feminism?
"Essentially, your conscience is clear, and you are free to label yourself a non-feminist - and even, an anti-feminist - sans the implication that you therefore support every single thing that feminism opposes."
But go now and read this week's lecture in its entirety:
gynotheory.blogspot.com
-------------------------------------------------------
Note: the following is recommended as foundational reading in conjunction with the above:
www.4shared.com/document/Y7LmET5s/EfficientPoliticalWorldview.html
posted by Fidelbogen at 7:11 PM
8 Comments:
The gynotheory link appears to be broken.
Fixed.
Have you seen this, fidel?
Tory MP blasts 'obnoxious feminist bigots' and says men get a raw deal
Dominic Raab: men should ‘burn their briefs’ in protest at ‘obnoxious feminist bigots’
I wouldn't vote Tory, but anyway it's a beautiful sight, isn't it? People are waking up.
I've been thinking about this post for a while. To put it a briefly as possible, I disagree. It is wrong to make logically fallacious arguments, especially the No True Scotsman and Straw Man logical fallacies.
Example: I often hear the No True Scotsman used to describe feminists. No true feminist could ever like or love men! This is logically fallacious because it makes a sweeping claim that may only hold true for a sliver/majority(but not all of them, that's the key thing) of feminists.
@Michael:
Yes..it is refreshing to see such things. Although, the bit about "burning your briefs" was, well, not to mince words. . vulgar.
It made me roll my eyes and groan...
@silentblood:
Maybe I am just a wooden-head Jones, but I have difficulty seeing the connection between your remarks and the post.
But per your remarks.
Bear in mind two things:
1: There is a difference between 'feminist' and 'feminism'.
2. Anybody can make the statement "I am a feminist."
Now, as to your hypothetical "feminist" who really does love men, well, I would call that individual a marginal feminist. A borderline participant in feminism if you will.
In fact, I would call that individual just a tad confused.
As a non-feminist (and an activated one to boot!), I set the terms and make the definitions -- as a non-feminist.
@Fidelbogen
Actually, it was more of taking this post in conjunction with "Refuting the Appeal to Dictionary". The problem with mixing these approaches is that it sets you up for making logically fallacious arguments(even if unintentional).
Reasoned criticisms are one thing, but logically fallacious criticisms are another. Just like I could say that all anti-feminists are anti-women, but that would be a Straw Man, and therefore faulty reasoning.
"I could say that all anti-feminists are anti-women, but that would be a Straw Man, and therefore faulty reasoning."
Exactly. Which is why I don't say that "all feminists hate men."
Although I do say that feminism is a hate movement, and that the "hate" in question is the anti-male brand.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home