This is the comment I left on this video: Is Feminism Good for the World?" | Debate Between Sargon of Akkad and Kristi Winters it's for Sargon, but I do point out a few of Kristi mistakes, and their common mistakes. Thought it was an interesting comment that i made so I'm sharing it here.
I must admit, Sargon, you didn't have very convincing arguments. I'm not a feminist (quite the opposite) , but your arguments were very close to sophistry. I appreciate your videos... but instead of focusing on the fact that feminism is an ideology and not only an activist movement ( like Kristi seems to view it) or to state that feminism ideological belief can't dictate reality, you focus on consequences of feminism that annoys you, you are angry, of course, but your arguments rely on shock value and caricatures of feminism, instead to rebute, you rant.You confused Feminism and women's rights activism, which are not the same things, when they said ''Would you want more Feminism in the middle east?'' the answer was easy: ''I want women's right activism, not feminism, because activism has objective realistic goals, ideologies have general idealistic goals''. You don't even talk about the same things! Kristi want to talk about the activism, You focus on the media and social media! You are clearly not on the same page. Look, there were great openings in her arguments where rebutal was easy, but you completely miss the easy points. You want to argue that feminism is terrible because social media and social science bias, but your argument apply to all ideologies! Kristi did make a few little good points there and there, if you rebuted those, her arguments would have fallen. Also, social science CAN be reliable! Behaviorism is very reliable for example. You can test it, repeat it, and the results are pretty consistent. Weak point here. You use analogies and ethical high horses ( Feminism actions are terrible but you didn't explained why) to justify that feminism is bad, well that won't work here, since you didn't put up logical arguments, you put arguments aimed at convincing, not thinking. That's quite the philosophical pitfall! You were the sophist in this debate, disagree if you wish, but that's obvious here: your arguments were logically weak and relied mostly on shock value and anger. She made big mistakes too! When she attacks yourcharacter instead of your arguments or strawman you she is guilty of intellectual dishonesty, but she clearly won the debate here. Everyone has bias, including you, when you claim that hard work is a more important ethical value than ''money because vagina'' (why the wage gap is not a problem you know)you have to justify why. You argued like you would with another anti-feminist, and you were clearly too emotionally invested. Kristi focused more on issues, you focused on the general feeling you get out of feminism. I liked that you mentionned bulverism (even though you were slightly wrong in your definition), she was wrong to attack your lack of sociology classes. I had sociology classes and of all the social sciences ( or human sciences) sociology is clearly the least scientific. It rely a lot on theories and circular reasoning, contrary to other human sciences like psychology, history, geography ( the human part is demography for example), political science ( second least scientific, very bias too) and anthropology ( which include judicial anthropologists, another great example of scientific social scientists).... Human sciences are reliable to different degrees on different matters. Freudian psychoanalysis is scientifically poor ( subconscious is difficult to prove), while psychoneurology is pretty strong ( that's why we cure depression with drugs now). You were condescending and cocky here, not to make a tone fallacy, but Kristi had enough respect to not be condescending and cocky, she was ''holier than thou'' attitude, but you were as well! Just the fact that all of you confused Feminism as an ideology and women's right activism baffle me. Feminism started out of women's rights activism and Carol Gilligan phenomenologically inspired philosophy, but those are separate entities. The suffragettes were not very ideological. Anyway if you want to talk about it, it would be a pleasure. you may be good on empiricism, but on the rationalism side it was very lacking.
Saturday, April 30, 2016
Thursday, April 28, 2016
Hey! here is the second version of my essay on feminism, it's a corrected version. I will present it at a philosophy contest at my college for a cash prize ( between 500$ and 1000$) ! I'll update you here if I win or lose! Still in french, sorry, but if I win I'll definitely translate it!
Dans « le libre marché des idées » certaines idées ont définitivement le vent en poupe, mais contrairement au marché des produits, les idées impopulaires ne sont pas seulement ignorées, mais activement opposées et méprisées, le politiquement correct est donc la norme qui ostracise le politiquement incorrect. La notion populaire que « Si vous croyez en l’égalité [des genres], vous êtes donc un féministe », est un excellent exemple d’une idée populaire où l’opposition est vue comme étant politiquement incorrecte. Toutefois, est-ce vraiment si scandaleux de se dire pour l’égalité des genres sans se déclarer également féministe ? Ma position est politiquement incorrecte : non. J’expliquerais toutefois pourquoi le féminisme est plus que cette phrase simpliste, car le féminisme tente d’expliquer le sexisme par des théories auxquelles quelqu’un pour l’égalité pourrait être en désaccord ; car le féminisme a des conceptions simplistes et inégalitaires de ce qu’est l’égalité ; et, car les contre-arguments et arguments soulevés par les féministes sont des sophismes empreints de raisonnement circulaire, de biais de confirmation et d’inversion du fardeau de la preuve.
Tout d’abord, le féminisme, en tant qu’idéologie, est bien plus que la croyance que les hommes et les femmes devraient être égaux. Les féministes avancent aussi des causes hypothétiques de ces inégalités, ce qui influence leur résolution. Parmi les théories féministes, on retrouve : la culture du viol, la misogynie internalisée, l’intersectionnalité (anglicisme de intersectionnality) et, bien sûr, la pierre angulaire des théories féministes, le patriarcat. Ces différentes théories avancent toutes des explications hypothétiques sur les causes des inégalités hommes/femmes. Le patriarcat, leur théorie fétiche, avance l’idée que nous vivons dans une société dirigée par des hommes, pour les hommes, où tout, y compris la culture (d’où le concept de culture du viol) et les femmes elles-mêmes (misogynie internalisée) renforce l’oppression des femmes et d’autres groupes jugés opprimés (d’où la nécessité pour de nombreux et nombreuses féministes d’être « intersectionnel » et de militer pour d’autres groupes, comme les minorités ethniques ou la communauté LGBT). Pour les féministes, ces théories sont factuelles et constamment renforcées par de nombreuses études et « faits » comme l’iniquité salariale, des chiffres sur le viol qui alarment et des chiffres démontrant que la parité n’est pas atteinte. Malheureusement pour eux, leurs données, études et « faits » sont constamment critiqués pour leur manque de précision et de validité scientifique. Beaucoup les accusent même de propagande. Les chiffres concernant l’iniquité salariale, par exemple, ont depuis longtemps été discrédités comme n’étant pas représentatifs, car ceux-ci ne font que comparer les revenus annuels moyens des hommes et des femmes sans prendre en compte les différences d’emploi, d’expérience, de temps travaillé et d’autres variables importantes comme les heures supplémentaires et les bonus. Les chiffres sur le viol souffrent du même problème. Les preuves pour leurs différentes théories étant insuffisantes pour affirmer qu’elles sont vraies, on pourrait s’attendre à ce que personne n’y croit avant d’avoir suffisamment de preuves de qualité, un peu comme personne n’oserait croire aux licornes sans de solides preuves. Ce n’est toutefois pas cette simple logique qui empêche les féministes d’encourager ou de faire des recherches visant à confirmer leurs conceptions préconçues, en dépit de la méthodologie scientifique, en assumant des conclusions (logique circulaire) comme prémisses se renforçant d’elles-mêmes. Quand des chercheurs font des recherches avec une vision féministe (donc subjective dès le départ) et veuillent trouver des liens de corrélation (et les déclarer des liens de causalité) entre des choses n’ayant aucun lien avec le genre et le genre, il n’est pas étonnant que l’on se retrouve avec des études ridicules, comme, par exemple, ces chercheurs, qui sont arrivés à la conclusion que la fonte des glaciers est sexiste!
Si ce genre d’absurdité n’était pas suffisante pour démontrer que le féminisme est bien plus que la définition qu’en fait le dictionnaire, la conception féministe de ce que devrait être l’égalité n’est pas égalitaire, mais tout le contraire. J’ai précédemment mentionné que les féministes pointent souvent le fait que la société n’est pas paritaire, et donc, en suivant leur logique, pas égalitaire. Toutefois, la parité n’est pas l’égalité, et viser la parité, c’est, en réalité, militer pour différentes inégalités. La plupart des gens qui croient en l’égalité des sexes, y compris, généralement, les féministes, sont d’accord sur l’idée que l’égalité des chances est la vraie égalité. Malgré des lois pour cette égalité des chances, les féministes sont convaincus par leurs théories sur le patriarcat et leur observation que malgré ces lois, la société n’est pas paritaire, que ces lois ne fonctionnent pas. Ils et elles pensent que des quotas, des mesures « d’affirmation positives » et des « safe spaces » (espaces protégés en anglais) seraient plus efficaces que ces lois anti-discrimination pour atteindre l’égalité par la parité. Ces mesures en elles-mêmes sont discriminatoires, et même, dans le cas des « safe spaces » de la ségrégation. D’abord, les quotas sont une absurde forme de discrimination positive envers les femmes et négative envers les hommes. Que quelqu’un obtienne des avantages sociaux sur la base de son genre (ou ethnie ou orientation sexuelle) plutôt que ses compétences, ou sa valeur en tant qu’individu, est en soit sexiste, peu importe quel genre est favorisé par ces mesures. Je n’utilise pas la définition sociologique du sexisme que les féministes apprécient, car cette définition n’a aucune base solide pour constituer une définition universelle. Les mesures « d’affirmation positive » qui comprennent les quotas sont définies par leur caractère discriminatoire « positif ». Les « safe spaces » cette notion originaire du monde féministe anglophone, est carrément la définition de ségrégation. Ces « espaces protégés » consistent en des lieux publics réservés aux femmes (ou d’autres groupes), où les hommes sont exclus, sous prétexte que cela « Les protège de l’oppresseur ». Je suis certain que c’est exactement ce que se disaient les Noirs dans les années 50 aux États-Unis… Pourquoi la parité n’est-elle pas l’égalité ? Tout simplement car la parité est un idéal inégalitaire, elle ne reflète pas la volonté individuelle de chacun(e). Si la parité vise vraiment à refléter l’égalité des chances, n’est-il pas paradoxal de dévaloriser les choix que font les femmes en leur imposant ce type de mesures condescendantes ? Je pense qu’ultimement ce type d’actions perpétue le mythe que les femmes sont faibles et doivent être aidées à s’élever au niveau des hommes pour réussir. Les féministes ont peut-être de bonnes intentions, mais ils/elles devraient revoir leurs solutions à des problèmes qui n’existent peut-être même pas.
Enfin, les contre-arguments et arguments féministes sont, très, très souvent, des sophismes. Les trois que je vois et entends le plus souvent sont : l’appel à l’identité, la passation du fardeau de la preuve et le sophisme génétique. Un fréquent contre-argument à mon premier argument, que leurs théories sont des théories, est que, en tant qu’homme blanc présumé hétérosexuel, je suis aveugle à mon « privilège » et donc que mes arguments sont invalides, car, de toute façon, en tant qu’homme, j’ai intérêt à maintenir le patriarcat et la culture du viol (ce dernier point suppose que les hommes sont généralement en faveur ou indifférents au viol et autre harcèlement ou violence sexuelle, ce qui est une énorme généralisation). C’est là un excellent exemple d’appel à l’identité. Ce n’est pas parce que je suis un homme, et que, selon les féministes, j’ai un intérêt à m’opposer à leurs théories que la valeur intrinsèque de mes arguments est nulle. C’est même plutôt sexiste en soi de croire que le genre de quelqu’un ait une incidence sur la capacité à avoir de l’empathie pour le genre opposé. Un autre contre-argument soulevé par des féministes est que c’est à l’opposition de prouver que le patriarcat et la culture du viol n’existent pas, que c’est à moi d’amener des preuves contre leurs théories, que je ne peux les critiquer sans preuves. Premièrement, personne n’a à produire de contenu pour critiquer celui des autres, c’est comme si quelqu’un disait que l’on ne peut critiquer un livre si l'on n’a pas écrit un livre, c’est ridicule. Ensuite, cela est également un sophisme, connu sous le nom de passer le fardeau de la preuve. En science et en philosophie, le fardeau de la preuve est l’idée que c’est à celui qui affirme l’existence de quelque chose de prouver ses dires, pas à ses détracteurs. Exiger de ma part de fournir des preuves de la non-existence d’une chose me garantit de perdre l’argument, puisqu’il est impossible de prouver la non-existence de quelque chose. C’est pour cela qu’il est impossible de prouver que Dieu, les licornes ou les reptiliens n’existent pas : on ne peut démontrer l’absence que par l’absence de preuves. Toutefois, cela ne veut pas dire, qu’au final, ces choses n’existent pas, mais tout simplement, qu’en attendant des preuves suffisantes, la position raisonnable est de supposer que ces choses n’existent pas. Et c’est exactement pour ça que je ne crois pas au patriarcat et à la culture du viol. C’est aussi pourquoi on ne devrait pas ostraciser ceux qui refusent d’y croire. Ma dernière réfutation porte sur l’argument le plus utilisé par les féministes : les femmes ont historiquement été opprimées, elles le sont donc encore aujourd’hui. Ce type d’argument est un sophisme génétique. Le sophisme génétique est lorsque quelqu’un présume que la signification d’origine d’un mot, de quelqu’un ou d’une chose n’a pas changé, qu’elle est restée la même, malgré un changement de contexte ou de connotation. Par exemple, croire que le terme « gay » qui avait autrefois une connotation péjorative est toujours péjoratif de nos jours serait absurde, le terme ayant de toute évidence changé sa signification. Ainsi, affirmer que puisqu’avant les femmes n’avaient pas les mêmes droits que les hommes, est une preuve qu’aujourd’hui encore les femmes dans les pays développés sont opprimées, est un sophisme génétique. La vision que la société se fait de la femme ayant changé énormément ces dernières décennies, l’existence et l’approbation médiatique du mouvement féministe illustrant même très bien ce changement d’attitude. C’est aussi ce type de sophisme qu’utilisent les féministes quand ils dirigent les gens à la définition du dictionnaire pour définir le féminisme. Le dictionnaire tend à avoir des définitions peu précises sur les idéologies, par manque d’espace ou de connaissances.
En conclusion, il semblerait bien que le mouvement féministe, en tentant d’expliquer les inégalités hommes/femmes par des théories douteuses, ne soit pas que pour l’égalité. Leurs théories leur donnent aussi des pistes de solutions, ces solutions étant souvent discriminatoires, voir même de la ségrégation. Et tout cela pour atteindre la parité, que les féministes considèrent comme la seule vraie égalité que l’on peut atteindre, car même si on a l’égalité des chances, si cette égalité ne se traduit pas par du 50-50, c’est un problème pour les féministes. Tant pis s’ils doivent discriminer, et donc augmenter les inégalités, pour atteindre cet objectif. Les contre-arguments et arguments apportés par les féministes se trouvent à être des sophismes, certains plus subtils, comme le sophisme génétique et l’appel à l’identité, d’autres évidents, comme de passer le fardeau de la preuve. Certains pourraient m’accuser, dans cette dissertation, d’avoir fait un épouvantail (straw man) de la position des féministes. Ce n’est pas le cas. Je me suis attaqué aux plus gros arguments du féminisme, à ses fondements actuels. On pourrait dire que les positions que j’ai visées ne sont pas celles « des vrais féministes », mais cela est comme dire que je ne suis pas un « vrai Canadien » parce que je n'aime pas le sirop d’érable, un autre sophisme. De plus, ma question initiale, « Doit-on être féministe pour être pour l’égalité entre les sexes », se répond d’elle-même, car n’est-il pas inadéquat de catégoriser les positions de quelqu’un dans des cases idéologiques ? Suis-je un néolibéral parce que je crois en la responsabilité individuelle et les droits et libertés individuelles ? Non, car le néolibéralisme est bien plus que cela. La même conclusion s’applique au féminisme. Il faudrait peut-être cesser de catégoriser ou ostraciser les idées des autres dans nos propres cases, les sophismes visant la personne étant, dans ce cas, bien trop tentants…
Sommers H, Christina (2014). The gender wage gap uses bogus statistics Vidéo 4min 44 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=58arQIr882w&index=46&list=PLytTJqkSQqtr7BqC1Jf4nv3g2yDfu7Xmd Consulté le 22 mars 2016
 Roy, Jessica (2016) Today’s New Sexist Thing: Glaciers En ligne. http://nymag.com/thecut/2016/02/even-glaciers-are-sexist.html Consulté le 22 mars 2016
Dictionnaire Larousse, féminisme En ligne, http://www.larousse.fr/dictionnaires/francais/f%C3%A9minisme/33213 Consulté le 22 mars 2016
 Devreux, Anne-Marie et Anne-Marie Daune-Richard (1992) « Rapports sociaux de sexe et conceptualisation sociologique » Recherches féministes, vol. 5, n° 2, (1992), p. 7-30 Consulté le 22 mars 2016
 Shulevitz, Judith (2015) In College and Hiding From Scary Ideas En ligne. Consulté le 22 mars 2016 http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/22/opinion/sunday/judith-shulevitz-hiding-from-scary-ideas.html?_r=0
Monday, April 25, 2016
The Right Double Thinking : Feminism is irrational, but neoliberalism? Not at all!
Just a quick rant while you wait for the next installment of my series Why Feminists never agree with their opponents. Answer: philosophy (here is Part 1). So I'm generally opposed to all this crazy radical feminism (No my politics teacher, being radical is not just ''going to the roots of''. Really not) , so I tend to want to listen to people from my side of this argument as well as the other ( yes I read feminists or watch their videos, It's entertaining). So I often hear not only more left leaning people, like Sargon of Akkad ( even through most say that liberalism is right wing, he still doesn't talk shit about the moderate left, only the radicals and regressive ones) but also right leaning people. This is not a problem for me: I don't believe that the right is intrinsically evil, like some like to think. I think they have their own views, sometimes they are rational, like when they oppose Feminism for not being rational [Edit: or when they advocate against anti-vaccines activists, like rebel media, a right leaning media outlet did], and sometimes it isn't, like when they believe in the naive neoliberal concepts of the ''invisible hand of the market'' or the condescending '' trickle down economics'', I can't help but notice quite the double think. They would probably say that I am the one double thinking here, but hey, I'm not the one believing that minimum wages, (some) economic protectionism, environmental and production regulations, taxes and universal state-funded education and health system are ''detrimental'' to the free market. Those Keynesians concepts already proven themselves to do a lot of good to a capitalist society. While Neoliberalism is creating more problems than it is solving: Increasing world wide inequality [Edit: I meant the increasing divide between the rich and the poor and the increasing divide between increase in salaries and increase in productivity, because global economy is overall better, since we make more than ever, however the distribution of the wealth is growing disproportionally inequally], globalization coupled with deregulation and an increasing number of tax shelters ( hell, even Canada is a tax shelter now!) being a major cause in this phenomenon, increased extreme left movements in reaction to austerity ( or as neoliberals call it ''fiscal discipline''), Global economical instability, another crisis like the one of 2008 being likely to happen in less than 10 years from now, general political insatisfaction from austerity (not just from lefties) , and many more. Tax shelters alone are a very big problem, that more and more big corporations avoid paying any taxes is lowering the tax income for many countries, including the tax shelters themselves. Lower income, mean less expenses, however corporations still profit from the common wealth while barely contributing to it through taxation. If a corporation use state funded roads, hire people trained in public schools or utilize any state operated/funded thingy, like Quebec nationalized hydroelectricity for an advantageous price for say, well I don't think it's to much to ask that they provide some income to the public services that they themselves and their employees all profit from ( quite hypocritical to make your employees pay taxes in your stead) . In fact, I think it's such a big problem that even very right leaning neoliberals should oppose tax shelters. It's an apolitical issue in my opinion .Anyway that was my rant for today, I could have extended on how neoliberalism deregulation have disastrous consequences on global economy, especially the dynamics between the countries with high regulation and those with low to none existant levels of regulations, but that will be for another time I think. Just a bit of food for thought.
Friday, April 22, 2016
Collectivism VS Individualism
You saw that one coming! This is the philosophical talking point mostly used by anti-feminists. And I think they emphasize it way too much. In themselves both of those conceptualizations of human society have their pluses and minuses. Let's first review Individualism. Individualism originate mostly from Liberalism (to not confuse with Neoliberalism), which we'll talk later on. Individualism premise is human independance. That humans in a society should be seen as individuals over a collective, people are themselves before being in a group. Individualists claim that by viewing humans as individuals we are being more just and fair, and giving the most freedom to everyone. Everything is indeed produced by cooperation or competition of collectives, but those collectives are not hive minds, each individual had his influence. Ideas always originate in individuals after all. They value independence, competition, liberty, human's free will and individual responsibility. This view claim that individuality is more equal, because it values every unit of the collective. If every individual has the sames rights, then everyone and every collective is equal. For them justice is individual. Individualists highly values free speech. Most also value private property, but not necessarily capitalism. They also tend to prefer smaller governments. They are the main supporters of equality of opportunities over equality of outcomes. Even if parity is not achieved, since the opportunities were there, you can't claim that they weren't there in the first place. As I like to say: if you flip a coin an hundred times and get 60 heads and 40 tails, you can't claim inequality, because the opportunities were the same for both sides. Kant, that I keep bringing on, is ethically individualist. Independence is really the key word of this view. Collectivism premise is human interdependance. Humans need each others and, this part is mostly inspired by Marx ideas, tend to form group relationships of power, based on different characteristics such as property, race, gender and many more. Collectivism argue that equality of outcome is the only way to truly reflect equality of opportunities, after all if there is not an equal outcome how you know the opportunity was there in the first place? Collectivism values determinism, cooperation, solidarity and collective responsability. They tend to prefer bigger governments. They believe justice is about collective justice, not individual justice. Both views are criticised for their flaws. Individualism is criticised for it's apology of private property that by is mere existence can cause inequalities of opportunities and it's rejection of humans interdependancy. Collectivism is criticisized for his tendancy toward mob justice, racial determinism, social determinism, and polarizing groups. Feminism is obviously more collectivist, while anti-feminists are more individualistic. This indeed do make their views highly incompatible.
Determinism VS Liberty
This debate is as old as philosophy: do humans have free will and are thus free, or are they determined by their environnment, and thus, not free? This debate inspired numerous philosophies : such as Marxism, Existentalism, Liberalism and many more. So let's start with the advocates of free will. Those who believe humans are free, believe that you got the power to decide, even if your environnment may limit you or constitute an obstacle to your choices, you still got the choice. Philosophies such as stoïcism and existentialism illustrate this way of thinking. Stoïcists say that even if most of what happens in life is out your control, such as other people opinions of you, natural disasters, and so on, you still choose how you react to those things. This is where the famous ''offense is never given, only taken'' originate from. Existentalism is more complex, but I would resume it in a philosophy that embrace individual existence before anything else, before labels and groups ( it's also individualist, yes). Existentialism also say that your freedom of thought is indeniable. I mentioned before how Kant justify free will as a noumenon that goes beyond the causal phenomenal world. He say that even through it seems impossible to make a decision since it would require ''a first cause'' , this first cause is noumenal ( the cause of a decision is also paradoxical for determinists, it's difficult to explain one individual decisions.). We don't know what it is. Also even if our phenomenal world require causal, spatial and temporal dimensions, it doesn't mean the noumenal world require those things. This does remind me of god, I have to admit. After all, nothing stop you from saying that god is noumenal. That we simply can't know. But indeed that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Kant also points out that our language imply free will, and that morality necessitate free will. For him, morality is an individual duty that reside in one's personal intentions and since only you can know your intentions, only you can know if you are acting good or not. For him an act is moral if you can rationally universalize it. For example: no one shall kill anyone.This is universal. Everyone should take heroin. No? Then it's not universal or moral. His corollary was that humans should view each others as an end, not a means. Humans are not tools. That's why he think prostitution is bad, but that it should be legal since it is someone choice to follow or not their moral duty. So generally speaking advocates of free will tend to invoke ethics in their arguments. Now determinism is the belief that you are not free, that your choices are simply illusions, the result of your environment. This environment can be your biology, which do indeed limits you (I can't give birth, and periods are a mystery to me) , but also cultural or societal environment, which is more debatable. It's kind of hard to believe for those who believe in free will that every choice you make is an illusion and that you are ultimately the product of your culture, biology, economy and society. The common question is that if this is the case, then what is the first cause of culture, economy and society? Is it biology and the natural environment? Also a counter-argument is that if we are the products of those things, why is there a rejection? Why CAN you reject your culture? Because your environment made you so? Determinism do ask more question than it answers, while free will is hard to prove, impossible in fact. Determinism is also often use to justify racism or facism. Feminism is more determinist than free will, hence all those talks about societal and cultural forces, socialization and class, racial and gender determinism. However, when they talk about women's choices or empowerment, they seems to acknowledge free will, while also denying it. So weird. Anti-feminists are more on the side of free will. Some, on both sides, says we are partly determined, their opinions vary on the degree of determinism, feminists taking a more determinist stance.
PS: might rewrite that one, I don't like it that much, too confusing.
Why Feminists never agree with their opponents. Answer: philosophy Part 1
DisclaimerI recommend reading the first part on phenomenology, the rest is less important. Just a tip if you are in a hurry. This is also not a refutation of feminism, merely an understanding of their rationale. Might seems useless to some, but understanding why people join an ideology from a philosophical point of view is important. It might not explain the individuals motives, but it does explain how they can convince people to join.
Many feminists and anti-feminists often wonder why they can never agree on anything, even if they might agree on some policies, they seem to disagree on why they should be applied or how. Anti-feminists claim feminists are just too biased (and authoritarian) while feminists claim they view things too differently ( and sexist, but whatever) ... Well on this particular issue, feminists have a point: we do view the world in fundamentally different ways (not sexist). So in this article I will review different philosophical dichotomies on which feminists and their opponents disagree. Those views influence their ideologies and arguments, and therefore, their acceptance of arguments. Here we go:
Table of matters: Phenomenology VS Analytical philosophy Part 1
Determinism VS Liberty Part 2
Collectivism VS Individualism Part 3
Authoritianism VS Libertarianism or non-authoritarians Part 4
Marxism VS Neoliberalism VS Liberalism Part 5
Phenomenology VS Analytical philosophy
Let's start with an hard, epistemological, dichotomy. So what the hell is that? Phenomenology? Analytical philosophy?... To explain what this is I have to tell you what epistemology is. Epistemology is the branch of philosophy that is interested in how knowledge is produced and what knowledge is. In order of philosophical importance it's the second most important branch, right after metaphysics, which concern itself with existence, the meaning of life and the likes. So what does phenomenologists and analytical philosophers disagree on? The nature of knowledge of course. Their feud started when a philosopher by the name of Immanuel Kant revolutionized this field of philosophy by making an audacious claim: knowledge does not come from nature, it come from the human mind. This view, Kant call it his ''copernician revolution'', in reference to Copernic, who revolutionized our view of the universe by claiming the Earth orbit the Sun, not the opposite. In philosophy and science the traditional view was that knowledge is out there in nature, and by our observations and science we gather the truth about nature. Kant changed that by observing that the way we view the world is not only subjective, but limited. Our senses limit us to only see, metaphorically speaking, the shadows of the real. Our reality is based on phenomenons, that ultimately, the ''real'' is a noumenon, something beyond the phenomenon. Human mind produce knowledge, not nature. He then proceed to demonstrate that the human mind is in itself a noumenon, that things such as emotions, imagination, and free will go beyond the phenomenal world, that can't make sense of something such as free will, because in a world where everything is causal, a decision must have a reason, that in itself have a reason and so on... the paradox of causal decision, of free will. Kant solve that problem by claiming our mind is a noumenon, that goes beyond our understanding of the world, because human mind can ''break'' the rules of the phenomenon. This observation influenced later on two 20th century philosophical schools: phenomenology and analytical philosophy. Analytical philosophy used Kant observation to justify why empiricists ( the nature have all the answer crew) and rationalists ( the only logic can produce knowledge crew) were having an useless feud, that their views were compatible in what was the scientific method, that takes the best of these two views. Analytical philosophy is a philosophical method that emphasize the importance of logic, clarity and evidence. This school of philosophy is the dominant one, the one that don't like sophistry, that values hard science, good arguments. They view the use of language as VERY important in philosophy. In fact, it is their main tool of analysis. This school of philosophy doesn't believe in a specific philosophical truth, it believe philosophy should aim the ''logical clarification of thoughts''. They value details over grand theories. Anti-feminists often fall in this category, while feminists fall into the other category, phenomenology. Phenomenology contrast with analytical philosophy in how it react to Kant observations. While analytical philosophy acknowledge that we can't observe a noumenon, it still acknowledge that there is more than just the phenomenons. Phenomenology doesn't. Phenomenologists believe that only what have a phenomenon is real, that if there isn't a phenomenon, it can't be real. They believe subjective reality can be made objective. They believe it is possible to make objective observations about emotions, judgments and the likes. They believe reality is ONLY phenomenal. They values ''experience'' over reason. But their definition of experience include not only their senses, but also: thoughts, emotions, judgments... I found this great definition by the site philosophy basics ''Phenomenology is the study of experience and how we experience. It studies structures of conscious experience as experienced from a subjective or first-person point of view, along with its "intentionality" (the way an experience is directed toward a certain object in the world). It then leads to analyses of conditions of the possibility of intentionality, conditions involving motor skills and habits, background social practices and, often, language.
Experience, in a phenomenological sense, includes not only the relatively passive experiences of sensory perception, but also imagination, thought, emotion, desire, volition and action. In short, it includes everything that we live through or perform. Thus, we may observe and engage with other things in the world, but we do not actually experience them in a first-person manner. What makes an experience conscious is a certain awareness one has of the experience while living through or performing it. However, as Heidegger has pointed out, we are often not explicitly conscious of our habitual patterns of action, and the domain of Phenomenology may spread out into semi-conscious and even unconscious mental activity.'' That sounded familiar isn't it? I'm sure you heard a feminist or two talk about how you can't understand a minority because of your experience, which is by the way, an appeal to identity, a fallacy, but not for phenomenologists, which feminists are. They also seem to believe in the Freudian concept of the unconscious, which analytical scientists say is too nebulous and subjective to be taken seriously. So here is the first, and to my opinion, foremost reason why feminists can't agree with their opponents: their arguments have a different perspective about what constitute knowledge, what is truth.
Thursday, April 14, 2016
(you are right Laci, there is lies... from you)
Laci Green: Sophist artist and Strawmen's best friend
This video is the very definition of sophistry, and strawmaning
I'm not sure if I should laugh, cry, or be mad, so, I'm a bit confused. That's how you feel when you notice sophistry. Sigh. She , I kid you not, start with the strawman that men ( sorry, she said ''men's groups'') claim that women lie about rape accusations 90% of the time. WTF LACI!? Even you are not THAT stupid. That's such an obvious strawman (misrepresenting someone's else arguments by belittling or exagerating them, almost in a caricature sometimes) of people who say we should not ''listen and believe'' victims of rape, because it's innocent until proven guilty, not the opposite, that I laughed, thinking she was going to flip the tables, explaining why saying that is wrong. But she did not. You could cynically say that she is a feminist so sophistry is her second home after collectivism... but she is so talented at sophistry that it is scary. To back up her 90% strawman she throw, at first, a small clip from a sheriff in Idaho that said, and I quote him, not Laci: ''The majority of rapes that are called in, are actually consensual sex'' Without context I can only guess that he meant to say that people ( probably partly because of feminism) don't understand what legally is rape and what is not. We all heard the feminists that said that women ( never men in those consent campaigns... HMM) could retract their consent AFTER having consensual sex. Those feminists want women to be able to call regrets rape! Also they push those absurd ''affirmative consent laws'' that make sex seems like an administrative nightmare, where obvious non-verbal consent is not taken as consent ( because not verbal), and verbal consent is not taken seriously ''because she could still had been coerced, she could had felt that she had to agree, even if she said she want it, she didn't''. Double think? Even if I agree that you can still not consent to something you said you would, it's not necessary rape, I mean, if you felt pressured to have sex and said yes, and the man didn't thought he was pushing you, and clearly was not but you still felt pressured, then WHY did you said yes? Sorry but if that man thought you were having consensual sex because you told him it was, it was not rape. Rape happens when you state , verbally or not, that you don't consent, and the rapist ignored that statement and went on anyway. THAT'S rape. Not this mushy woobly ''she decide if it was rape whenever and however she want'' bullshit. Rape is subjective, but not THAT subjective. So, about the sheriff, Laci said before presenting the clip : ''A sheriff in Idaho said that they don't need a better system for rape kits, which collect evidence, because most victims are liars.'' Hum, Laci, did you listen to that clip you shown us? Because that's clearly not what that man was implying. I saw the link she gave for the clip ( click HERE to see it) and watch the whole videos (there is two videos). None of them was showing that clip. In fact that article from the Oregonian is explaining, in a fairly good vulgarized way, to be honest, how rape kits works and the job of those who analyse them. There is a modified version of that quote from the sheriff however : "The majority of our rapes — not to say that we don't have rapes, we do — but the majority of our rapes that are called in are actually consensual sex." I think I understand the sheriff position on the matter, even if we do have DNA evidence, there is no need for more of that type of evidence ( the rape kits seems already pretty good, judging from the videos they shown themselves) since even with DNA you still need to prove there was no consent. And that's why most people accused of rape are hard to prosecute: there is not enough evidence, it's the victim's words against those of the suspect. Even if you proven there was a sexual intercourse, you still need to prove if it was consensual or not. So curious, I googled ( googlen? googlin?) the sheriff quote, and my, was it a good idea. The media went crazy on him, most said it was victim blaming, or an example of rape culture, or that we need to ''listen and believe'' victims... The usual feminist rhetoric, you know. Was fun. People really like to misrepresent others with who they disagree with isn't it? We are only at the 30 seconds mark of a 4 min 40 seconds video, so lets move on, there is more fuckery to listen ''and believe'' to. She then admits people can lie about rape, but claim that it doesn't happens often, so we should believe people, the risk of false accusation and thus false incarceration, is low so it's fine. She also quote some statistics ( and plain dumb explanations like, and that's a caricature, a joke, not really what she said: '' the patriarchy made her recant her accusation''), but I won't review them because it doesn't matter if they are true or not. for the same reason we don't really care if crime statistics are high or not: we still need to do something about it. And not exagerate or belittle reality, of course ( because acting to solve an exagerated or belittled problem can hinder the resolution). Think about it, she thinks thats it's fine if some men are falsely accusated, convicted, and socially ostracised for the rest of their life for a crime they didn't commit because it doesn't happens often? If someone said that rape or ethnic murder is ok because it doesn't happens often people would be shitting all over the place, but Laci basically does the same thing but for women and?... Oh right! Everyone applauds. Bloody hell, that is scary. (Side note: she call alleged rape victims survivors, can't help but to think about Bear Grylls whenever someone say that.) To give credit where credit is due, she did demystify a myth about rape, that rapists are generally people we know and love, not strangers. But she then use disgusting mental gymnastics to turn that to her advantage. She claims that people tend to be sympathetic to the accused because they know him, giving a few celebrity examples like Bill Cosby. She say that we should believe he raped women, after all, more than sixty women reported him for rape! Yeah, let's make an argument of popularity, if something is popular or done by many people it must be true or good, like unprotected sex or tax evasion! Also, I'm sure none of those women saw the first reports and thought to themselves that they could make a few bucks by prosecuting a rich actor with false accusations... She then is baffled by the fact that a lot of people accused of rape tend to say they didn't do it and accuse the victim of lying , like if that's surprising or something. She say that believing that a ''real rape'' is a reported case that ended up with conviction of the accused is a myth ( she is not entirely wrong here, a rape could have occured even if the accused was deemed innocent or the case unreported, but still, she use that fact in a very skewed and dishonest manner), an illusion, quoting those 2 out of 3 statistics about non reported rapes or that VERY misleading ''only 2% of rapists see a day in jail'' statistic. I did debunk, in a confusing way, I admit, those claims before in that article : Why does modern Western Feminism and Veganism are horrifyingly similar to religions? ( Part 1: Feminism myths). [EDIT: here is a second link to Bennehh video on the matter, we posted the same day, what a coincidence! His approach was different than mine so please check it out, he is deeply unsubcribed, his weekly series on Tumblr is the funniest shit.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BDOJ4S1u7aE]But my english and text structures were ''meh'' at best, so I'll try to quickly debunk them again. First , how the hell do they know if a rape is unreported, if it's, well, unreported. That question is not very well answered either in those studies, so there is that. Second, the 2% statistic is more about ACCUSED rapists, not ''real'' rapists. See, rape is difficult to prosecute so even assuming that statistic is true, which it isn't , (I'll let excellent youtubers such as TL;DR explain that to you , HERE is his channel) it still make sense that not many of those accused are convicted, because of the lack of evidence and the victim's words being opposed to those of the accused, it's difficult to get people above the 50/50 doubt , which is necessary for a conviction. She say our courts are not arbiters of truth and complains about it, well I agree, courts aren't arbiters of truth, they are arbiters of justice. The court only need the truth for justice, but when the truth is innaccesible, you still need to provide justice, for both the victim and the accused. She say there is myths about how a ''real victim'' would act ( I could say the same about anything from ''real rapists'' to ''real feminists'', weird to see Laci Green trying to refute a no true scotsman fallacy but fail at it.). True... But those generalisations are still accurate. Most victims cry, are traumatized, get anxiety issues and other trauma. A great credit for her, is that she did aknowledge that men can get rape, that erection is not consent. Well, that's really mature of you Laci, thank you for saying that.Too bad she say, right after, that we don't believe ''survivors'' ( That term again... Now I got this image of someone with PTSD, not twitter PTSD, war PTSD, of course) because they are mostly women( +10 patriarchy points! Yay!). Sigh. It's always one step forward, two step back with Social Justice Warriors and feminists... She even said ''subconscious sexist beliefs''. Whenever someone goes full Freudian with me I tend to roll my eyes: Prove it Laci, prove that we hold ''subconscious sexist beliefs''. She end her video talking about ''what if the accusation is shown to be false?'', saying that on the quote on quote'' rare moments '' it happens they need to be taken seriously, but that we need to talk about ''the reality that sexual assault are nearly always true''. You wished! Seriously prove that it is the case if you want, but even if it is , legislation for rape should remain objective, not wishy washy . She is growing as a person, it's noticeable, she do say at the very end that men are more likely to be sexually assaulted than to be falsely accused ( those two things doesn't seems to have much links between them, but she is a feminist, so it does not suprise me anymore. Also ''are more likely to be assaulted than accused'', if true, should have been said instead of falsely accused, but whatever). So Laci Green herself is becoming a bit more reasonable huh? Well that's good, she is still an incredible sophist, which is not a compliment, really, but she is making progress I guess. Her researchs seem a bit more thought of than usual and from better sources, she didn't fall into the worst myths... Yeah Laci Green is becoming smarter, who could have foreshadow that? I hope she continue to question not just the myths she debunked, but her own rhetoric, since there is a lot of misinformation there. So while this video made me cringe, I have to admit, she is getting there, slowly, but still, she is getting smarter about her arguments. So... Good job?... Can't believe I'm complimenting a video full of fallacies and false informations, but from her usual videos that is quite the improvement... So good job Laci. P.S In her summary of the video content, on her personnal channel, she talk about herself in 3rd person. So weird!