What is the most embarrassing straw man you've ever read by a philosopher?

Feminist scholarship, and critical theory in general, is empirical investigation.

No it's not. And I can illustrate that fact. Show me a few examples of substantial critical theorists that attempted to falsify the existence of patriarchy. Your failure to show scientific treatment of the most elemental part of the theory poisons everything that arises from it. I would love to actually see you do your "I can't, because there aren't any" dance.

No feminist says that proof is a bad thing.

Sure they do. Feminists are a pack of rabid hyenas that attack those who put forth proof that contradicts them. Wage gap. False rape accusations, single parent homes, these things are like the bagpipes that call feminists to jihad against evidence. They boycott advertisers of publications that reveal evidence. They pull fire alarms to prevent speakers from informing audiences of evidence. They remove members from committees to prevent evidence from entering the record. They intimidate legislators into refusing to hear evidence from opponents. They file sexual harassment complaints against people who offer evidence. They think it's a very bad thing.

Since you don't cite Butler's argument, this part of your post was a waste. Asserting that her argument fails is not the same as showing that her argument fails. This is actually a huge problem for you since you never cite anyone directly.

Um, I gave links. Let's talk about your citations. It won't take long. You don't have any. Just for fun, I'll SHOW you AGAIN how Butler's argument fails. (The first sentence is the citation you claim doesn't exist.)

Butler explored the persistence of biological sex in feminist theory as the source and cause of the unequal social treatment and status of women. Butler argued that sex was an effect rather than the cause of inequality.

Guess what Butler didn't do? Establish the existence of inequality. She took that to be true because she feels it's true. A scholarly charlatan. Imagine an empiricist attempting this flim flam: Increasing the thrust of the engine overcomes the increase in the force of fairy dust.

Did you notice how feminists (that's you) obscure evidence? (Because they think proof is a bad thing.). I cited three sources. This is on the record. You don't have a reasoned rebuttal, so you claim I didn't cite sources. You obscured my sources. That's one way feminist epistemology is anti-science. You think that if you feel I didn't give links, then you can assert it as a fact.

You also haven't cited anyone who is generally classified as a Post-structuralist.

You just did it again! Judith Butler is a landmark post structuralist. She is so prominent and closely linked to the field, she has her own heading under "Major Works" on the Wikipedia page for post structuralism. Her own Wikipedia page identifies her as a post structuralist.



There are many, many more. All this time you've been pretending to be an expert, you were fibbing, weren't you? Do you feel stupid now? If you feel stupid, then you are.

Also, what is your argument for feminism being based on feelings?

I was clear about that. With sources. The ones you, in desperation, claim don't exist.

You've asserted it but I've yet to see anything other than assertion.

Are you fibbing again?

I said that feminists claim empiricism has the function of oppressing women and minorities. That's not true. Why isn't it?

Why isn't it true that empiricism does not oppress women?

That's the first well reasoned thing you've said. It's a good question. Congratulations. Empiricism does not recognize gender. It is binary. It recognizes only "supported by the evidence" or "not supported. So, whatever inequity is visited upon women, if there is any, exists independent of our knowledge of it. Empiricism didn't create it, and can't alter it. At most you can say that women are disadvantaged by NOT knowing some answers. But empiricism doesn't erase knowledge. It can only add more.

I also didn't claim you had a defect.

I saw the ones you posted but I didn't see what you claimed in there.

If you saw them. Why have you persistently been fibbing? I would really like to know. What did you hope to achieve by claiming I didn't?

Can you point out a particular quote?

I will not read the books for you. And before you argue with their contents, you should read them. If I did give you a quote, you would tell me I oversimplified. Clearly you want an exhaustive explanation of feminism. Since we now know you are only pretending to be an expert, I urge you to do so.

That wasn't a defense. I was just doing a little emoting on my own.

That's to be expected. Feminism is all about feelings.

/r/askphilosophy Thread Parent