Why No One Cares About Feminist Theory

Why No One Cares About Feminist Theory - Quillette 26/02/2018, 15*50
HOME ABOUT
E D U C AT I O N , F E AT U R E S , P O L I T I C S
Published on January 2, 2018
Why No One Cares About Feminist Theory

written by James Lindsay
http://quillette.com/2018/01/02/no-one-cares-feminist-theory/ Page 1 of 34
Let’s be real about something important: nobody actually cares what feminist scholars
think or why they think it. Truth be told, this isn’t surprising. Feminist scholarship is a
peculiar academic backwater that nobody should pay any attention to—and it’s probable
that nobody would if it weren’t becoming so painfully in!uential.
That outsized in!uence is also unsurprising. People care very much about gender
equality and about women’s rights — in both the US and the UK, gender equality enjoys
the support of roughly four out of "ve people. This sets up a problem. With the
exception of other feminists, more or less the entire world completely ignores feminist
theory, and they have done so for decades, which has let it go quite far down its own
self-referential rabbit holes. That this scholarship has gone ignored while developing
what looks like a storied academic pedigree is why feminist theory endures and exerts so
much control over academia and society, which is to say it’s a rather huge problem.
You may think I’m exaggerating to say that it’s a major problem to ignore an apparently
relatively inconsequential corner of academic pursuit. Well, check your privilege and
look around because it’s leaking out of the theory departments.
Everyday Feminism
@EvrydayFeminism
The real reason why these dudes can’t handle a conversation

about sexism with saying #NotAllMen. bit.ly/2icIj0J #misogyny
#sexism
1:11 AM - Jan 2, 2018
Why Your ‘Not All Men’ Argument Is Just Sexist Hypocrisy

What’s the real reason why these dudes can’t handle a conversation
about sexism without saying “not all men?” This comic nails it.
everydayfeminism.com
57 38 people are talking about this
It is true that gender studies, which conceptually encompasses feminist theory,

maintains almost no representation within the one thousand most signi"cant academic
journals (Gender & Society, the top among them, proudly ranks 824 among all academic
journals), but it’s di#cult to ignore many of the more recent real-world applications of
feminist theory. I could point to obvious egregious abuses here, like the shameful
excesses on college campuses and outsized moral panic about sexual harassment, yet
I’m even more compelled by “shrill” feminist popularizer Lindy West’s recent tirade
against men in the the New York Times. Even more worrying, this screed echoes feminist
scholar Lisa Wade’s weeks-earlier de"nitely-not-man-hating assertion that “the problem
is not toxic masculinity; it’s that masculinity is toxic,” and that “we need to call
masculinity out as a hazardous ideology and denounce anyone who chooses to identify
with it.” For those who don’t realize, “toxic masculinity” is a technical term originating
from within feminist theorizing, not some cute turn of phrase invented by edgy writers
with an axe to grind.
At this point, we must really pause to ask ourselves how feminist theory is leaking into
popular culture, and the reason is that it’s activism-driven scholarship. It has an agenda:
this agenda, to remake society in its own image. Though the wide support for gender
equality does not "lter e#ciently into support for feminism of this sort (only roughly
one in "ve Americans and fewer than one in ten Britons identi"es as a feminist), it
provides an entryway for feminist theory to reach the public. The gateway through
which this happens has mainly been the university, where feminist theory is not only
generated but is applied in practice. This has occurred primarily in two ways. First, as
centers of culture and learning, feminist theory has slowly (and largely intentionally)
leaked into the educational curriculum and university culture, which has led to it
spreading into media (which preferentially showcases it), business (with its new
emphasis on diversity and inclusion), and society at large (which has broadly
internalized a surprising amount of critical theory). Second, it gets applied directly
through the frighteningly expansive applications of Title IX, which originated as part of
the Civil Rights Act but was expanded under President Obama’s tenure in ways that
seem both distinctly illiberal and at odds with the overarching goals of the university.
Given the overwhelming positivity for gender equality and its applicative epicenter
within the university, it is remarkable that everyone, especially non-feminist academics,
is so demonstrably underwhelmed by feminist theory. Granted, it’s seemingly a bit dull
and arcane, as it is the complex academic theorizing, largely philosophical in nature,
that seeks to understand the nature of gender inequality. This isn’t the reason feminist
theory has proven successful, however. That honor goes to it having made itself insular
and, for lack of a better term, un-care-about-able. The solution to this consequential
problem therefore is not to start caring about feminist theory because that’s all but
impossible. It isn’t just that feminist theory isn’t something people care about; it’s that
it’s the kind of thing almost nobody can care about. Worse, even if you manage to
somehow care about it, nobody will care about that, and you’ll su$er alone.
Like the myriad details describing the island universe of a video game you’ve never
played, or the theological nitty-gritty of a religion you don’t believe, or the explanation
of a really trippy dream someone else had and insists on telling you about (“we were
together at our house, but it wasn’t this house, it was some di$erent house, but it was our
house in the dream, and you had two forks…”), feminist theory bears almost every
hallmark characteristic of the un-care-about-able:
It’s properly esoteric like many well-developed academic disciplines.

It seems to describe an alternate universe that looks kind of like ours but
fantastically distorted in a way that makes it hard to suspend one’s disbelief (and
this is consequential).
It involves tragically two-dimensional Manichean struggles of good (allegedly
emancipatory feminism) against evil (human nature, masculinity, men,
“patriarchy,” women being themselves, “oppression,” science, pornography, media
portrayals of essentially everything, emojis, and so on).
It sounds like conspiracy theories (because it utilizes several, such as “patriarchy,”
“hegemonic masculinity,” “rape culture,” and “hegemonic femininity”).
It gets presented in obscurantist technical jargon (like that you only disagree
because of your “privilege-preserving epistemic pushback”) and its own
specialized colloquial language that excludes the uninitiated.
It’s "lled to the brim with confusing turf wars (materialist/Marxist feminist,
radical feminist, intersectional feminist, gender critical feminist; liberal feminist).
It goes almost completely unread, not only by everyone outside the "eld, but also
by almost everyone inside the "eld too (more than 80% of its papers do not
receive a single citation).
It absolutely refuses to listen to anybody else.
Perhaps the "rst truly overwhelming criticism applicable to feminist theory came from
biologist Paul Gross and mathematician Norman Levitt in 1994 in their book Higher
Superstition, which sought to save the academy from the growing excesses of the
academic Le%. The problem, ultimately, (and here I know I might lose half my readers
for the thematic reason behind this essay) was that feminist epistemology and feminist
science studies had blossomed under such apparent luminaries as Evelyn Fox Keller and
Sandra Harding. These women, inter alia, sought to expose science and knowledge
production as sexist and to remake them bent more "rmly to the feminist will (Harding
even referred to Newton’s legendary Principia as a “rape manual” (p. 113), though she
later regretted saying so).
Thus, arose “the Science Wars,” and the "rst major salvo on the side of sanity was Gross
and Levitt’s admirable stand against what can only be described as a serious bid to
initiate a new feminist Lysenkoism. Gross and Levitt, in turn, inspired Alan Sokal,
famous for writing the academic hoax that inspired our own and leading to a book with
Jean Bricmont called Fashionable Nonsense — a brilliant title which also succinctly
describes why feminist theory lies beyond human concern.
Peter Boghossian
@peterboghossian
THE CONCEPTUAL PENIS AS A SOCIAL CONSTRUCT: A

SOKAL-STYLE HOAX ON GENDER
STUDIESskeptic.com/reading_room/c…
11:18 PM - May 19, 2017
The Conceptual Penis as a Social Construct: A …

“The conceptual penis as a social construct:” a
Sokal-style hoax on gender studies by
@peterboghossian and @GodDoesnt.
skeptic.com
1,640 1,086 people are talking about this
These Science Wars should have been de"nitively ended by Steven Pinker in 2003,
when he published his devastating book The Blank Slate. As you’ll no doubt have noticed,
feminist theorizing did not stop in 2003, or 2004, or even 2005, though the Science
Wars did slide out of the spotlight. Rather than ending the strains of feminist theorizing
that it should have thoroughly embarrassed, The Blank Slate more accurately ended any
reasonable belief that serious engagement with or criticism of feminist theorizing would
slow it down.
Far from being fatalistic histrionics on my part, by the way, this result was recently
demonstrated by Charlotta Stern, using Pinker’s book as a benchmark. Stern’s discovery?
Feminist theory is very insular and guarded from outside criticism — to the point of
"ttingly being the academic equivalent of Themyscira, the inaccessible island of the
Amazons in DC Comics Wonder Woman universe. It isn’t merely that feminist theorizing
isn’t interesting or intelligible to outsiders, it’s that it evolved in a way that sequesters
itself away from the majority of other rational thought. Put another way, feminist
theorizing has never been short on critics, but, through the de!ective power of
accusations of potential sexism, it responded to this selection pressure not by

responsible academic correction so much as making itself un-care-about-able to the
outside world while blinkering itself so that it might continue as though all criticism of it
is, indeed, too sexist to be worth noticing.
As a result, in May of last year, working with philosopher Peter Boghossian, I attempted
to bring attention to the problem of academic feminism by publishing a ridiculous
satirical academic hoax called “The Conceptual Penis as a Social Construct,” which
proved slightly controversial and drew many criticisms. Among other criticisms of the
hoax of varying worth, many scholars became upset with us that we attempted to do a
hoax at all rather than engaging feminist scholarship directly and in an appropriately
digni"ed and scholarly way.
Massimo Pigliucci
@mpigliucci
Taking feminist scholarship seriously: beyond the conceptual penis

hoax. tinyurl.com/y7bx85wg
2:33 PM - Aug 29, 2017
27 17 people are talking about this
This is where the high-minded theorizing of the academy runs headlong into the brick
wall of reality, however, for three signi"cant reasons. Firstly, feminist theory is un-care-
about-able, so had we engaged with it more seriously, no one would care. Secondly,
high-minded scholarly engagement with feminist theory fares poorly against the reality
of the situation: all charlatanry bene"ts from serious engagement with the peers it hopes
to emulate. Creationists want to debate biologists for the simple reason that some of the
imprimatur of biology accidentally scrapes o$ on the creationist from the moment the
debate is scheduled. “See, I’m doing science too! This scientist wants to debate me!”
Feminist theorizing, not unlike theology, in this way bene"ts but is not injured by
engagement with mature philosophy and science that attempts to treat it on its own terms.
“We’re feminist philosophers and sociologists! We inspire and participate in academic
debate in those "elds!” We need to think very carefully about whether this is something
we want to do. The alternative, by the way, is to refuse to engage its premises on its own
terms and to reveal it to be an unsophisticated and inadequate model for understanding
reality.
Thirdly and most importantly, criticism of feminist theory, from within feminism itself,
is worse than un-care-about-able. It’s arranged so that substantive criticism makes no
impact. How could it? It has set up a self-protective system (as do nearly all conspiracy
theories) in which criticism of feminist theory is understood to validate feminist theory.
Take, for example, the commonly heard claims that “criticism of feminism is why we
need feminism.” Under feminist theory, which is deeply dependent upon postmodern
thought, knowledge is believed to be constructed by “dominant discourses,” and
feminism, particularly intersectional feminism, is taken to be the true defender of
marginalized voices, including those allegedly of women. Worse than this, because of its
beliefs about these structures of power, to criticize feminist theory is to violate a moral
taboo against gender equality. Critics of feminist theory, even in purely scholarly terms,
are easily derided as being complicit in sexism, and the moral architecture of the post-
1960s academy le% other academics (and administrators) particularly weak against these
charges. Thus, feminist theory perpetuated and concentrated, making itself
simultaneously less connected to reality and even more un-care-about-able.
Criticism of feminist theory therefore cannot work in the normal way. From within, it
can only be seen as evidence that the dominant discourses it seeks to overthrow are still
dominant, thus need opposing even more strongly. Interpreted from within the
scholarly architecture of feminist theory, critics like myself, Peter Boghossian, Paul
Gross, Norman Levitt, Alan Sokal, and Steven Pinker are just white males exercising our
epistemic pushback, like every other man who disagrees. (Nota bene: Women who
disagree su$er from “internalized misogyny” and, in an attempt to maintain favor with
“the mens,” engage in the same epistemic pushback, once removed — so there’s no
winning here, only agreeing with the feminists, being used as evidence of the rightness
of feminism and the need for more feminism and feminist theory, or being ignored.)
This makes two potent forces that have allowed feminist theory to endure beyond the
endurance of responsible scholarship. First, it de!ects all criticism by abusing a loophole
in the academic and cultural Le%’s moral architecture: an overwhelming need to
distance itself from anything anyone could conceivably call bigotry, which is a need
outdone only by an even stronger impulse to throw clear virtuous signals proving the
uncrossable magnitude of that distance. Second, it makes itself un-care-about-able by
retreating to a fantastic academic island, like theology. The trouble is that the island has
made itself well-armed and we’re well within range of its missiles. Given that this is
occurring within a wider environment of almost complete indi$erence to feminist
theory for the very good reason that it is producing very little that is comprehensible,
coherent or substantive, this is indeed a problem.
The upshot of this grim view is that it gives us an out. It doesn’t leave us in the position
of trying to care about feminist theory — that’s almost impossible and then worse.
Rather, it should leave us asking some serious questions about what it means that
feminist theory is simultaneously un-care-about-able and yet enormously consequential
in the hands of the activists it churns out.
I’ll suggest that the answers to those questions render it outside the demarcation of
responsible scholarship, however scholarly it appears. Scholarship that refuses to be
criticized isn’t scholarship; it’s an age-old mimic known as sophistry — the kind of
philosophical-looking poppycock that assumes its conclusions and writes endlessly in
circles trying to hide that fact. It doesn’t need to be this way. Feminist theory and gender
studies more widely could be both worthwhile and interesting if they valued evidence
and rigor and accepted criticism. Currently, they do not. If we can accept this, then the
way forward is clear. If feminist theory isn’t scholarship at all, we have no obligation to
treat it as such.
James A. Lindsay has a doctorate in math and background in physics. He is the author
of four books, most recently Life in Light of Death
Death. His essays have appeared in TIME
TIME,
Scienti!c American
American, and The Philosophers’ Magazine
Magazine. Follow him on
Twitter @GodDoesnt
Share this: Tweet Share 2.7K 35 points Share  Email  Print
Islam and the Future of The Strange Death of Heretic: Why Islam Needs Facing the Congo: A
Tolerance: A Dialogue Europe: Immigration, … a Reformation Now Modern-Day Journey i…
$12.99 $18.50 $17.68 $26.00 $10.15 $15.99 $12.97 $16.00
(415) (405) (643) (50)
All Search Amazon Go
Ads by Amazon
F I L E D U N D E R : Education, Features, Politics
72 Comments
yandoodan
January 2, 2018
“Nobody actually cares what feminist scholars think or why they think it … it [is] … becoming so
painfully in!uential.”
I would like to have seen more discussion of how something being ignored by everyone becomes
painfully in!uential. Perhaps the theory is being ignored but the theorizers are not. But why should we
pay attention to theorizers whose theories we reject out of hand, when we bother to learn about them
at all? How could they even become known, much less in!uential?
An example from my youth: Köppen-Geiger climate classi"cation is completely ignored outside its
narrow "eld, and, as a result, its researchers have no in!uence on the climate wars now going on. No
one even knows what it is. (http://bit.ly/2kYB8bw if you’re curious.)That’s what you’d expect. Is it even
possible that K-G theorists would dominate global warming debate even as no one has any idea what
K-G theory is? It seems unlikely. So does the proposition that feminist theory is widely ignored even
though feminist theorists have outsized in!uence.
Ash
January 2, 2018
> I would like to have seen more discussion of how something being ignored by everyone becomes
painfully in!uential. Perhaps the theory is being ignored but the theorizers are not. But why should
we pay attention to theorizers whose theories we reject out of hand, when we bother to learn about
them at all? How could they even become known, much less in!uential?
I don’t have a great answer for you, but I’d look at three things:
1) Catharine MacKinnon and the evolution of Title IX

2) Western society’s modern, progressive, enlightened natural caring about victims of any sort, and
the hacking of that by identity politics
3) Empire building at Universities
One huge factor that has helped the feminists is the vast number of women who took gender studies
and not critical thinking and then went into journalism and law. And the men alongside them who a)
see 2) above, and b) wanted to get laid, and c) got laid.
And then at companies and in congress and in the courts, you’d have to be a real Simon Legree not to
impose rules to help the victims and punish the aggressors.
Greg Allan
January 3, 2018
“I don’t have a great answer for you, but I’d look at three things:”
I would add that feminists have long marched institutions for decades and many are entrenched in
quite in!uential positions. I’ve come to a conclusion that the only way to undo much of the damage is
for others to do the same.
Mary Koss is probably worth inclusion alongside MacKinnon for her excessive in!uence on work
being done by the US Centre for Disease Control.
Andy
January 3, 2018
Pretty close I’d say.
Most Christians haven’t read the Bible, for example. How you get from that to “Therefore the Bible
doesn’t in!uence people” is simple but wrong.
Carl Craven
January 3, 2018
<>
By playing the victim card. It’s intriguing that you can be so strong and so vital and so equal and so in"uential
and all the superlatives that you wish to apply and yet still be the victim.
Taupe Pope
January 4, 2018
NIcholas Nassim Taleb has a very powerful notion of how minorities can gain sway over open
societies. Read here: https://medium.com/incerto/the-most-intolerant-wins-the-dictatorship-of-the-
small-minority-3f1f83ce4e15
TL;DR: By being absolutely intolerant feminism maintains its purity while making any epistemology
that engages it adapt its assumptions by treating it according to scholarly standards of discourse,
accept certain presumptions and moral priors etc.
Greatly concerned...
January 7, 2018
All apologies, straight from wiki, yet…
The Pareto principle (also known as the 80/20 rule, the law of the vital few, or the principle of factor
sparsity) states that, for many events, roughly 80% of the e$ects come from 20% of the causes.
Management consultant Joseph M. Juran suggested the principle and named it a%er Italian economist
Vilfredo Pareto, who noted the 80/20 connection while at the University of Lausanne in 1896, as
published in his "rst paper, “Cours d’économie politique”. Essentially, Pareto showed that
approximately 80% of the land in Italy was owned by 20% of the population.
It is a common principle in business management; e.g., “80% of sales come from 20% of clients. ”
Richard Koch authored the book, The 80/20 Principle, which illustrated a number of practical
applications of the Pareto principal.
Also see “The tipping point.” Malcolm Gladwell.
Also… think about how your feminist in!uenced partner derides you in small ways a couple of times
every day over years and how this greatly harmed your life! And as this articles states how you’re
supposed to be “man enough” to just suck it up and take it – Flattering you on one hand for your
strength, reinforcing the feminist theory, while completely attempting to undermine you, your sanity
and comfort e$ectively with the other…
Feminism is the end of equality and reason.
It’s domestic terrorism and should be outlawed as the sophisticated, cunning abuse it actually is.
Ash
January 2, 2018
I found this very interesting, but I do think Massimo has a point, even if his own take on it is bathed in
his own self-aggrandizement.
There are ways your hoax could have been better, and it would have been even better still had you
and Peter faithfully examined and reviewed a few feminist papers. Maybe the most in!uential.
Re: not debating with charlatans. Careful, because feminists play that game too. Basically any one is at
any point part of the establishment plays that game. But it’s a foul game. It’s one of the chief ways that
feminists use when refusing to debate critics and men, and egalitarians.
Stephen J.
January 3, 2018
And it’s the most common reason given why AGW alarmists refuse to debate AGW skeptics, as well.
Ash
January 2, 2018
Oh, I would also have liked to have read in this essay, what can be done about this.
Speci"cally, if
> This sets up a problem. With the exception of other feminists, more or less the entire world
completely ignores feminist theory, and they have done so for decades, which has let it go quite far
down its own self-referential rabbit holes.
If other scholars in the university agree or are concerned that the gender studies department has gone
down a rabbit hole, what is their duty as members of the academy, to correct it, and how can they?
Jane
January 2, 2018
“It absolutely refuses to listen to anyone else”. This was the point where I started laughing out loud
(and, in full disclosure, stopped reading). James, many of us care. We try to tell you why we care. You
refuse to listen. You talk over us and you mock us. I’m not convinced you even realise you do it. At a
recent meeting in Sydney where you alternately ignored and mocked, the silences and the subsequent
connections made with like minded colleagues – the majority in the room – were much more
valuable than the bluster. You can rail all you like, but people who care about feminist theories and
use them in their everyday work are everywhere.
Charlotte G
January 2, 2018
Jane — why *do* you care?
Why do you participate in the academic version of a conspiracy theory?
How do you justify it?
Helen Pluckrose
January 2, 2018
In what context are you speaking? James has carefully explained that there is little interest in academic
journals but that these ideas are seeping out into activism and a$ecting mainstream society anyway.
Peter Murphy
January 3, 2018
That snarky, defensive tone and complete lack of any actual point, aside from bemoaning – life a
scalding "shwife – that the author is ‘just not listening’, rather proves his point.
Paolo
January 3, 2018
You seem to say that you and other people care. Do you have also something interesting for others to
read?
Fish
January 3, 2018
If you do care – as your post suggests – please answer one (or both) of these simple questions:
What observation (perhaps hypothetical) would convince you that sex di$erences in humans are
caused by something other than “the patriarchy”?
or
Why is a feminist theory explanation of sex di$erences more likely to be correct than a biological
explanation?
Yeyo
January 3, 2018
The refusal to listen is mutual, since you never listened when we debunked your silly blank slate
theories why should we continue to listen to you? You never wanted a dialogue, you just want to
lecture.
Taupe Pope
January 4, 2018
Feminists care about how they are perceived and the results of their activism but they don’t adopt or
adapt to outside information. See feminists’ continual rejection of commonplace psychological and
biological facts which point to general, innate di$erences between the sexes. See feminist activists’
continual underlying assertion that any disparity is caused by unjust discrimination. Without this the
women in STEM movement would be non-existent
J. Pascal
January 4, 2018
I can’t speak for the academic, but the popular feminist demands that people shut up, listen and
understand, would suggest that an exchange of ideas is not on the table. And of course understanding
means agreeing with, it’s not possible to understand and still disagree. More, people and men in
particular are required to listen and understand and accept attacks on their identity and person
without becoming defensive or angry, although being falsely accused ought to make anyone angry.
And there again, as the author of this piece mentions, getting angry at false accusations and dismissal
of one’s experience and person and identity, is proof that you’re guilty. It’s proof of male fragility.
And that’s just on the rhetorical side, not even addressing objective observations of real life (as
opposed to fantasy) power dynamics.
David Hoyong Jeong

January 6, 2018
Do not lie, Jane.. You tell other people about those feminist “theories”, without you ever
understanding what you are saying.
You just pretend that you understand what you are saying, but you don’t, because no sane human
being could ever even pretend to understand a big web of nonsense, falsehoods and lies, the feminist
“theories”.
Peter Kriens
January 7, 2018
I think you have a very good motivation to write an article for Quillette reasoning why the author of
this article is wrong?
Finn
January 8, 2018
“This is the point where I started laughing out loud (and in full disclosure, stopped reading.”
You just proved his point.
yneb on the contrary (@yneb_on)

January 2, 2018
Fascinating article.
Keep thinking what on Earth happened to these feminist theorizers to build a “scholarship” based
entirely on men hate.
Are any of these “scholars” married to men?
If yes, how do they relate to their husbands?
Greg Allan
January 3, 2018
“Are any of these “scholars” married to men?”
Of greater concern to me is whether they have sons.
Steve Humann
January 3, 2018
Feminist journalist Julie Burchill, Fri 15 Oct 1999:

“That young men succeed in suicide more o%en than girls isn’t really the point. Indeed, the more
callous among us would say that it was quite nice for young men "nally to "nd something that they’re
better at than girls.” And: “The last time I suggested that suicides should be le% to get on with it, I
received a small number of letters from people whose sons had killed themselves. All of them
demanded an apology. I’d advise them this time to save their stamps because, you see, I don’t care.”
http://archive.is/s1VPH
It took her son another 15 years to kill himself a%er she wrote that. If you think it couldn’t get any
more disgusting you only need to read her self-aggrandizing post-suicide articles where she describes
herself as her son’s “primary care-giver” before admitting that not only had she thrown his privileged
mentally-ill inconvenience out nearly a year prior to his suicide, but that she’d also maintained very
little contact a%er throwing him out. Mom of the year right there.
http://archive.is/Is5zm
Even as she proves herself to be the *most* “callous among us” she has enough self-awareness to
imagine him cringing at her opportunistic media presence a%er his death. “You can sleep now, little
bear, and when you wake up, I’ll tell you once more how much I love you, and you will pat my head
and say, ‘Likewise. But did you have to show o$ so much when I died? Those prayers? That Facebook
stu$? That Sunday Times Magazine piece? Cringe!’.”
Travis
January 4, 2018
You should see the feminist journalists who are openly misandric that also have sons. Julie Burchill’s
son commited suicide.
edit: Welp looks like Steve beat me to it by a day. Oh well, worth keeping this comment I guess
Fixpir
January 4, 2018
“Of greater concern to me is whether they have sons.”
Absolutely.
I have a very close example in my own extended family, a feminist’s son, attempted suicide à 20,
living a handicapped life. Away from his mother.
Ryan
January 2, 2018
I agree with some of this and "nd it all interesting to consider, but even apart from its connection to
feminist theory, I "nd many recent (and some not so recent) critiques of masculinity as, at least in part
(of course, biology likely plays some role), a social construction that limits men (causing them to
repress much of their full humanity–basically anything that can be seen as “feminine”) and o%en
leads to negative male attitudes and behaviors towards women to be rather compelling.
It also resonates very well with my experience growing up as a man–much of boyhood and male
behavior seemed to revolve around constantly policing masculinity in ways that perhaps bene"ted
some but in general seemed to limit men and push constant desperate attempts to adhere to
unrealistic and unhealthy standards.
And while some female feminist writers have made this case (bell hooks especially powerfully in A
Will to Change), I’ve heard many men (in some cases men completely outside of academia/feminist
studies) make it as well: Jackson Katz in the "lm Tough Guise, the "lm Hip Hop: Beats and Rhymes,
Tony Porter in a recent TED talk, Arthur Chu in a series of essays about nerd culture and masculinity,
etc. And I’ve talked to many men who see how masculinity as a construct or ideology (not merely their
biology as men) has and continues to limit them as well as men who feel they’ve broken free of it in
part.
While feminist theory’s ideas and position as a "eld of inquiry are de"nitely open to some of the
criticisms leveled here (and I’m supportive of such a discussion), I think it’d be disappointing if that
becomes a reason to cast aside the masculinity issue as yet another of the “obviously wrong, anyone
can see it” type problems, since, again, it’s not something only super invested feminist scholars (and
only female writers and thinkers) have observed and critiqued. I’ve noticed other writers and thinkers
I generally admire (such as Sam Harris) use general criticisms of feminist theory and gender studies to
evade giving discussions of masculinity and its impacts on men and women a full and good-faith
hearing, and I’d like to see that change.
Sabrina
January 3, 2018
Another reason feminist theory is o%en ignored is because it is o%en centered on the West, and so is
the audience. Your average Westerner does not see women in the West the way a feminist does, so
they have no interest, but when it comes to girls in other parts of the world, I’m sure their
perspectives has some things in common. Transnational feminist analyses on the status of women in
Asia and Africa can certainly be worth reading, in my opinion, but as the author points out, all the
di$erent ‘factions’ within feminism can get unnecessarily confusing (I think certain schools of thought
within feminism are a lot more valid than others).
Lee Moore
January 3, 2018
I feel a bit like I’ve wandered into the 1950s. The idea that in 2018 society is promoting “traditional”
masculinity rather than trying to suppress it with a mallet is – Christ what’s the polite word for
“deranged” ? – Ok, “problematic.” Why do we have boys doing much worse than girls in school, and
“attention de"cit” disorders ? Because society is desperately trying, "t to burst, to make boys behave
like girls.
Back in the real world, “masculinity” or in plainer English, ideas of how men ought to behave in
society are obviously a social construction. But equally obviously not a social construction made out
of whole cloth – a social construction built on millions of years of biology. It’s the male dominance
hierarchy.
The particular form that it takes depends on the society, and until relatively recently “being good with
a club” was a good way to get you near the top. Though not all the way. Being “good at leading men
with clubs, by persuasion as well as brute force” could get you right to the top. Most of the traditional
“toxic” elements of masculinity – toughness, apparent indi$erence to pain and hardship, a veneer of
invulnerability, taking the lead, willingness to do ( just) violence, a protective attitude to women and
children – are more or less universal across all societies.
The main exception to this traditional masculinity is the fairly recent Western world which has
invented new male hierarchies in which men with non traditional skills can excel – sport, pop music,
the arts, business, science, pop culture, writing, being a TV pundit. The multiplication of hierarchies
in which men can demonstrate competitive competence has greatly expanded the opportunities for
men who didn’t do well at the traditional soldier-politician hierarchy.
So you want to complain about toxic masculinity here ? This is completely…….problematic.
Deafening Tone
January 3, 2018
I endorse this reply 100%. If you can’t compare across cultures to identify male universals, if you
cannot observe the male characteristics of our closest evolutionary ancestors such as orangutans or
gorillas, you have, a priori and with near certainty, eliminated biology as a frame of reference. You’ve
kicked Darwin in the face, at least. And we haven’t even touched history yet. Or real, actual scienti"c
gender research: DNA, fMRI, biology, the list goes on.
Travis
January 4, 2018
“Because society is desperately trying, "t to burst, to make boys behave like girls.”
Exactly correct. I think most men realize that they’ve been mislead by their mid 20s, though I could
be wrong about that. Women don’t want feminized men, they want successful resourceful men who
aren’t vulnerable. I wonder why mothers and especially teachers and the entire school system are
teaching boys to be girls…
Well I think a large part is the mainstream thinking (not the identi"cation with the label, as was
mentioned int eh article) with feminist ideals: girls are better, smarter, more capable pure beings than
boys and boys should sacri"ce themselves for girls. Male disposability and gynocentrism are I think
the main problems, and feminism ampli"es that x100.
Michael P
January 3, 2018
most discussions of masculinity by feminists centres around what they think a man should do and
most of those discussed by blue pill males also miss the point.
Yeyo
January 3, 2018
“It also resonates very well with my experience growing up as a man–much of boyhood and male
behavior seemed to revolve around constantly policing masculinity in ways that perhaps bene"ted
some but in general seemed to limit men and push constant desperate attempts to adhere to
unrealistic and unhealthy standards.”
Ryan, what you are describing here is male intrasexual competition. Without acknowledging the basic
evolutionary roots there is no way of addressing this phenomenon in a constructive way.
Taupe Pope
January 4, 2018
If you’re interested non-feminists such as Dr. Warren Farrell and Tom Golden have tackled
masculinity in constructive and nuanced ways. The documentary, The Red Pill serves as a good
introduction to their ideas.
Razz
January 4, 2018
The limits you mention are in place for very good reasons. Masculinity is bound and policed for very
good reasons. But be safe in assuming you know best.
David Hoyong Jeong

January 6, 2018
Any talk about masculinity or femininity that is not based on the physical, chemical, biological
evidence discovered in nature is only a talk "lled with fantasies. Yet, feminism is doing exactly that.
Sabrina
January 3, 2018
Wow, I made a lot of spelling/grammar mistakes in my previous comment.
*Another reason feminist theory is o%en ignored is because it is o%en centered on the West, and so is
the audience. Your average Westerner does not see women in the West the way a feminist does, so
they have no interest, but when it comes to girls in other parts of the world, I’m sure the perspectives
of feminists and non-feminists have some things in common. Transnational feminist analyses on the
status of women in Asia and Africa can certainly be worth reading, in my opinion, but as the author
points out, all the di$erent ‘factions’ within feminism can get unnecessarily confusing (I think certain
schools of thought within feminism are a lot more valid than others).
Deafening Tone
January 3, 2018
“It isn’t merely that feminist theorizing isn’t interesting or intelligible to outsiders, it’s that it evolved
in a way that sequesters itself away from the majority of other rational thought.”
I think you had a typo: “It isn’t merely that feminist theorizing isn’t interesting or intelligible to
outsiders, it’s that it evolved in a way that sequesters itself away from the majority of RATIONAL
THOUGHT [full stop].”
Joe Halstead
January 3, 2018
“The alternative, by the way, is to refuse to engage its premises on its own terms and to reveal it to be
an unsophisticated and inadequate model for understanding reality.”
I agree with this, but the way to accomplish this, unfortunately, is for feminism to attempt to graduate
out of academia, and beyond the corporate whores and political whores (who simultaneously signal to
the rest of us what is morally virtuous AND claim that they’re only doing what the masses think is
morally virtuous!).
That is to say, the lives of ordinary people must continue to be a$ected (read: HARMED) in tangible,
quanti"able ways, so that the overwhelming majority, disinterested in feminist theory that they are, so
busy actually living and working and producing things as they are, push back and say, THIS IS
WRONG.
In fact, I believe this to be true for all forms of SocJus. For example, in terms of pushing back against
blatant anti-white racism, it doesn’t su#ce that two professors have been ousted for wishing for white
genocide and for imploring everyone to let su$ering white people die, respectively. The problem, in
each case, originated in academia and was taken care of within academia. But it only served as a rear-
guard retreat for Black Lives Matter and their racist cousins, back to academia, back to where they can
resume poisoning the real world at a slow, barely-perceptible drip, just as feminism does as described
by the Mr. LIndsay.
I hate to repeat this, but it seems clear that real harm must be done (such as the unfair expulsion of
male college students, who have responded by racking up legal victories) so that we care about the
real-world application of feminism, race-activism, gender activism, and more.
Pingback: Resolutions Work. Does Yours? — Freedom Today Journal
thebibosez
January 3, 2018
The assertion that Harding somehow “regretted” her assertion that Newton’s Principia was a rape
manual is ludicrous. It is more likely that, instead of feeling genuine regret as an errant man might,
she wanted to stoke the controversy. Feminists do not apologize – the feeling of regret is entirely alien
to them. They NEVER express regret unless it is to reignite a dying "re.
Paolo
January 3, 2018
The main points of criticisms of feminist and gender theory reiterated here are already familiar and
probably clear to the readership of Quillette. I have two main issues with this article.
First its author. Beyond the factual side ofor the story – well documented in the links – there is a layer
to it that is opinion and own expertise, for which we need to trust the honesty and indeed expertise of
the author. And here I can’t forget that Lindsay never took serious notice of the main criticism to his
hoax: i.e., that it didn’t work. The matter is analysed in depth in a podcast of the Very Bad Wizards,
where it is painful to witness Lindsay doing his utmost to avoid retreating the most extravagant claims
he and Bogossian made to the merits of the ‘feat’. Amazingly, Lindsay here takes the occasion to
promote his hoax, but again misses the chance to even partially straighten the record. Until that
happens I cannot trust the intellectual honesty of this author.
Second issue, which I swear is independent from the "rst, is that the piece is very badly written. For
example, the evident contraddiction between ‘no one cares’ and ‘it’s dangerously in!uential’ should
have been resolved immediately.
Jack Murphy
January 3, 2018
I kept thinking the contradiction between no one cares and dangerously in!uential was a deliberate
satirical set up…but alas, it was not.
Also, some discussion of Nassim Taleb’s work on the in!uence of a tyrannical minority over a
majority would have helped things along here.
Markus
January 3, 2018
Yup. Completely agree. There are many high quality assays on Quillette, but this one is a bit painful to
read.
Mark
January 3, 2018
I thought the message was clear; No one cares about the theory itself as it’s self-referential twaddle.
But it’s protagonists have managed, by exploiting the desire to ‘virtue signal’ in in!uential parts of
society to give the general ideas such as ‘toxic masculinity’ a degree of acceptance that they don’t
deserve.
thebibosez
January 3, 2018
Easy solution – just accuse feminist scholars of rape or sexual harassment. This could all be done
online – a series of one-by-one isolated claims, in the spirit of #MeToo, (true or false does not matter)
– by their own rules, accusations are all that matter to feminists, even anonymous ones made falsely.
Some, like Lena Dunham, may try to defend the accused but they, like Lena, will quickly recant. Once
all those rapist profs are arrested and/or booted out of academe, the healing may begin.Yes, this seems
ethically wrong but in "ghting sophistry a case can be made that using the benighted rules of
opponents in turnaround is fair game.
Shai Landesman
January 3, 2018
” (and here I know I might lose half my readers for the thematic reason behind this essay)”
Beautiful beautiful point. You sold me on your thesis with this demonstration.
Scholar
January 3, 2018
In a way or another, the criticism should be done for the sake of science and academia. In recent
years, it has become clear that there exists a correlation between this feminist nonsense and the anti-
science movement (creationists, denialists, anti-vaccine people, etc.; make your pick). Both are
essentially using the same tactics.
The end result a$ects us all; funding and budget cuts, in!ation of academic degrees, public trust in
science, etc. Given these constraints, I really fear for the humanities and social sciences, which are
necessary and which do produce quality research.
The problem is that criticism does not come from within humanities and social sciences. Actually, as
you write, it cannot come within; no one dares to engage with the nonsense. Nor can it come from
outside. This leaves the public, but the danger is that the whole scienti"c enterprise will be a$ected.
Maybe this is exactly what these academic feminists want, but I sincerely hope not.
PS. I would gladly use my real name, but I have too much to lose for reasons noted also in this reply.
Marshall Gill
January 3, 2018
“Funding and budget cuts”
It is telling how you mention the “anti-science movement” before bemoaning the loss of ability to
steal from the productive. Since you call yourself “scholar” I might ask, who pays your salary? Do they
do so freely, or at the point of a government gun? Don’t bother replying, I already know the answer.
Douglas B. Levene
January 3, 2018
My question is, where were the college presidents and trustee who approved tenure for these
charlatans? What were they thinking? Where are they today?
Peter Kriens
January 7, 2018
Lookup the Larry Summers’ story when he was president of Harvard …
Ed Lonegan
January 3, 2018
Breezed through it. In conjunction, did you know there are only two metaphysical possibilities. But
speci"cally regarding your point see these two links about one of Feminism big money makers.
http://archive.li/Ns35n
https://imgur.com/a/MQ jlg
These two always throw feminist into a spectacular frenzy whenever I post them.
Ed Lonegan
January 3, 2018
At second link go to top of 3rd page
alex (@alexisjonn)
January 3, 2018
As conspiracy theories go, the one concocted in this article is pretty weak. Lindsay argues that even
though no one cares about, reads, or understands obscurantist feminist philosophy or theory, it
nevertheless exerts way too much control over academia and wields too much in!uence in the
mainstream media. According to Lindsay, feminism theory is “leaking into popular culture” and
remaking “society in its own image.” As evidence for this claim, Lindsay links to a single bizarre article
about “Women’s Studies as Virus,” which as far as I can tell has exactly zero citations, but is somehow
representative of a nefarious and widespread plot by feminists to “infect, unsettle, and disrupt
traditional and entrenched "elds.” And so, Lindsay concludes, feminism, because no one is paying
attention, advances stealthily like an infectious virus and has led to moral panics, the popularity and
acceptance of “shrill” feminist screeds, and a draconian expansion of anti-discrimination Civil Rights
law in U.S. Colleges (sigh). As so this is feminism; a scary, shrill, and authoritarian conspiracy to
remake society in its own illiberal image.
One might be amazed at how it is that a marginal and underfunded academic "eld, that produces a
tiny fraction of U.S. college graduates each year (<1%) wields so much power. Perhaps, feminist
scholars are evil geniuses! But I will o$er a more straightforward and reasonable explanation for
feminism's popularity. Feminism advocates for the social, economic, and political equality of the
sexes. So, feminist theory uses sex/gender to analyze social, economic, and political relations, and
therefore it is of practical interest to many women who make up half of the population. Gender
equality has not been achieved anywhere in the world, as even a cursory glance at some of the
research and statistics compiled by various women's groups, the U.N., or W.E.F show. Rigorous and
evidence-based feminist research has documented that many women are likely to have experienced
some form of sexist discrimination, harassment, gender-based violence, or sexual assault. Thus, even
though feminist theory or philosophy is unlikely to have been read by most people, its overall goal or
message likely resonants with a large percentage of the population (again approx. 50% of the
population are female!). And so this maybe is a more reasonable explanation for a marginal and
underfunded academic "eld's in!uence and popularity than a bizarre conspiracy theory of about
obscurantist feminist scholarship that seeks to insulate itself from criticism.
Further, the idea that feminism is not accustomed to or cannot accept criticism is silly. Feminism is
subject to scathing criticism and "erce backlash from conservatives, so-called skeptics, the religious
right, and other academic "elds, so that doesn't make much sense either.
Bartek
January 4, 2018
Your assertions are incoherent on several dimensions, for example:
No one said that feminism is underfunded, only that it is marginal. In fact, it is perfectly possible (and
happens in practice) to be marginal (in terms of scienti"c signi"cance) and overfunded, especially
when the area of research is heavily ideologically loaded. Also, the power to in!uence has little to do
with the size of the group. For example, in my country, many scholars consider the Catholic Church
to be extremely in!uential over politics, media and essentially everything and this is de"nitely not
based on the number of academic theologians.
The fact that feminists philosophy “resonates” (whatever if means) with 50% of the population does
not explains its in!uence, as there are dozens other disciplines which resonate with 100% of the
population and still lag behind feminism. Also, in fact, there are dozen di$erent variants of feminism
(e.g., equity, evangelical) that may resonate with larger number of women than academic gender
feminism.
Finally, the argument that feminism can accept criticism because it is heavily criticized is utterly
illogical. Replace “feminist” in your last paragraph with, for example, “creationists” or “conspiracy
theorists” (and “conservatives” with “liberals” and so on) and you will see the absurdity of this
argument.
However, the main problem with academic feminism, as already stated by some commentaries, is not
its perceived or actual in!uence, but the fact that it goes contrary to what we expect from science.
Actual scientist should gladly accept the challenges to their theories and be able to defend them on
the basis of the impartial and sound evidence. The academic feminism defends itself by
“psychoanalyzing” the critics – it is exactly the same situation when a theologian claims that if you
criticize his argument you have you be possessed by the devil (note, however, that good theologian
will not restore to such argument, thus academic feminism is, in fact, scienti"cally inferior to
theology…)
alex (@alexisjonn)
January 3, 2018
As conspiracy theories go, the one concocted in this article is pretty weak. Lindsay argues that even
though no one cares about, reads, or understands obscurantist feminist philosophy or theory, it
nevertheless exerts way too much control over academia and wields too much in!uence in
mainstream media. According to Lindsay, feminism theory is “leaking into popular culture” and
remaking “society in its own image.” As evidence for this claim, Lindsay links to a single bizarre article
about “Women’s Studies as Virus,” which as far as I can tell has exactly zero citations, but is somehow
representative of a nefarious and widespread plot by feminists to “infect, unsettle, and disrupt
traditional and entrenched "elds.” And so, Lindsay concludes, feminism, because no one is paying
attention, advances stealthily like an infectious virus and has led to moral panics, the popularity, and
acceptance of “shrill” feminist screeds, and a draconian expansion of anti-discrimination Civil Rights
law in U.S. Colleges (sigh). As so this is feminism; a scary, shrill, and authoritarian conspiracy to
remake society in its own illiberal image.
One might be amazed at how it is that a marginal and underfunded academic "eld, that produces a
tiny fraction of U.S. college graduates each year (<1%) wields so much power. Perhaps, feminist
scholars are evil geniuses! But I will o$er a more straightforward and reasonable explanation for
feminism's popularity. Feminism advocates for the social, economic, and political equality of the
sexes. So, feminist theory uses sex/gender to analyze social, economic, and political relations, and
therefore it is of practical interest to many women who make up half of the population. Gender
equality has not been achieved anywhere in the world, as even a cursory glance at some of the
research and statistics compiled by various women's groups, the U.N., or W.E.F show. Rigorous and
evidence-based feminist research has documented that many women are likely to have experienced
some form of sexist discrimination, harassment, gender-based violence, or sexual assault. Thus, even
though feminist theory or philosophy is unlikely to have been read by most people, its overall goal or
message likely resonants with a large percentage of the population (again approx. 50% of the
population are female!). And so this maybe is a more reasonable explanation for a marginal and
underfunded academic "eld's in!uence and popularity than a bizarre conspiracy theory of about
obscurantist feminist scholarship that seeks to insulate itself from criticism.
Further, the idea that feminism is not accustomed to or cannot accept criticism is silly. Feminism is
subject to scathing criticism and "erce backlash from conservatives, so-called skeptics, the religious
right, and other academic "elds, so that doesn't make much sense either.
Gary Goodman
January 15, 2018
Boys and men experience discrimination, harassment, violence, and assault. Sometimes that’s sexual
and/or gender based. Not only women. Sometimes women cause or initiate.
Since bullies pick victims, and women tend to be physically less strong, apologies to Ronda Rousey,
women are probably more o%en victims of physical and sexual assault.
On the other hand, men are expected to "ght physically so women have some expectation of defense
from bad men and an honorable man will refrain from being physically violent with a rude woman
where he might beat the crap out of a dude.
And the other other hand, where women initiate domestic violence because (a) less fear of causing
serious injury or death (b) less fear of retaliation (c) knowing the system will charge him with DV.
I know of a few women who apparently know how to initiate DV as a handy tool for ending
relationships.
In high school, I was pushed to assault a guy (mildly, mostly scared him) by a new girlfriend to defend
her helpless honor (some story). I was a chump, she lied to me. He never did anything. I was
compelled to apologize to him. He was a truly nice gentle kid. I felt lousy.
The PROBLEMS I am now recognizing with feminism are certain arguments such as “believe her”.
This made more sense decades ago, but the problem is throwing out fundamentals like “innocent
until proven guilty” (that’s just White male Euro patriarchy?) and the presumption that women never
lie, when y’all KNOW some women lie to other women and some get o$ on drama … some men do
the same.
Framing of EVERYTHING thru a concept of patriarchy and evil of all men.
Veblen (social-political economist) explained, men who rose to dominance in tribes or groups were
strong, fast, cunning, organized as teams, able to hunt and obtain high quality animal protein. Vegan
aesthetics aside, this was for the entire group to be stronger and !ourish. They were literally bringing
home the bacon or whatever animal they could catch.
That propensity for useful violence could conquer other tribes or prevent being conquered.
Aggressive tendencies have been both destructive and life-saving, promoting survival.
Civilized cooperation and justice also has high level merits for survival, otherwise it never would have
been developed.
Christopher Steven Day

January 3, 2018
this is so very true
benevolent sexism has made it so that the development of feminist theory was largely treated with
kid-gloves and as such it has been le% to mature in a way lacking hard critical engagement. moreover,
abandoning the notion of objectivity nearly altogether and placing activism above scholarship and
e$ectively merging the academic with the political, voicing dissent within feminist ranks was seen not
as a call to a better understanding as scholars but as a loss of solidarity within the movement and a
signaling of political disagreement
and the sisterhood did not tolerate it well
in other words, if the de"ning feature of the university is institutionalized discon"rmation, where
high honors and positive social sanction goes to the theorist who proves others WRONG, then
feminist theory as has been practiced in the anglosphere for roughly a half century is at odds with the
goals of higher education
Jim
January 3, 2018
There is no such thing is feminist theory, because feminism is not a science; it’s a political party.
Stephen J.
January 3, 2018
Arrogant as this suggestion may be, I’d remark that perhaps this essay’s speci"c focus on academic
feminism as a "eld is missing the forest for the trees; I think the real problem is the fundamental
dishonesty of all forms of critical theory, as encompassed in the phenomenon Eric S. Raymond has
brilliantly called the “ka&atrap”. (http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=2122)
Summarized brie!y, a ka&atrap is when somebody claims that any challenge, criticism or rejection of
an argument only a#rms the argument’s validity; questioning the discourse that condemns you is
taken in itself as proof you deserve condemnation. “Criticism of feminism is why we need feminism,”
as Lindsay himself quotes. It is a way to delegitimize disagreement by de"nition, and critical theory in
general is almost toxically dependent on the ka&atrap for all of its basic arguments.
Feminist theory speci"cally is, I think, most prone to relying on it because the emotional blackmail
e$ect by which it gains most of its power (“if you resist this argument you want ALL WOMEN TO
SUFFER!”) is not only culturally more plausible and universal — most men are, in fact, aware that in
general we have signi"cant physical advantages over most women that morality requires us not to
exploit — but also, like most male-female dynamics, is perceived to o$er a context for negotiating
potential sexual intimacy; or, as noted more bluntly above by others, men bought into feminism
because it created an environment where the right buzzwords could get you laid more quickly, easily,
cheaply, and noncommittally than the old-style courtship rituals did.
Brett
January 4, 2018
Predictably, almost every piece of evidence the author produces in asserting that obscure feminist
theory has become “painfully in!uential” has to do with college campuses; one wonders how many
more lunatic right-wing conspiracy theories these places can hold.
Once again, we have somebody who can’t seem to di$erentiate between “things that annoy me” and
“things that pose an existential threat to society.” A pretentious article in the New York Times and a
bunch of nineteen-year-olds carrying mattresses on their heads does not indicate that “society at
large” has “internalized” radical feminist ideology. It is not something that anyone needs to mobilize
against. No matter how much it pisses you o$, it simply doesn’t matter.
Instead of spending your time writing satire about penises, why not write about the fact that low and
middle-income Americans have literally no impact on policy? Or that real wages haven’t risen since
the eighties? Or that three people have as much wealth as the bottom half of the country? Or that the
ecosystem is dying? Or that corporate lobbyists write virtually all of our legislation? Don’t all of these
things indicate that some small, insular group of people is wielding undue in!uence over society?
Get a life and stop obsessing over a bunch of kids. Care about something that matters.
Kim il Baba (@ariellabooks)

January 4, 2018
Except, if you happen to be a Biology Professor and risk Jail for suggesting that there are only an male
and female gene which preventing one from Identifying anything else as a mammal, which is now
considered hate speech under C16 of Canadian Law.
Taupe Pope
January 4, 2018
How are these for feminist in!uence:

The Duluth Model of Domestic Violence – a guide which has been implemented by police forces
virtually worldwide.
VAWA legislation
Title 9
Prostitution being legalised but made illegal to solicit in many European countries.
It’s been going on for 60 years. Stop being ignorant and facetious.
Sam Butler
January 6, 2018
Some of the men who’ve lost their jobs as part of the #metoo movement – Ryan Lizza, Garrison
Keillor, Rupert Myers – are victims of extreme and novel de"nitions of sexual harassment advocated
by radical feminists in universities, as well of the erosion of due process encouraged by the same
groups. A few years ago it looked like that extreme view of sexual harassment wouldn’t get out of the
universities (the new de"nitions, a%er all, con!ict with democratically-enacted laws); now they’ve gone
mainstream.
Maurice
January 4, 2018
There’s a saying, Ideas have consequences. Universities are pushing this crap on kids just out of high
school. And at least some of them are buying into it. They will leave college, and go work in
government, law, media, HR departments… And then it WILL matter. You’re just too full of righteous
indignation to see it.
Brett
January 4, 2018
I have no doubt that many radical feminists will enter those "elds in coming years. And by the
extreme nature of their beliefs, they will continue to conceal the real threat: the plutocracy they serve.
We all have a common enemy.
Kim il Baba (@ariellabooks)

January 4, 2018
Jacques Derrida, Michel Foucault and Judith Butler have a lot to answer for with this Post Modernist,
Marxist twaddle
Philip
January 4, 2018
“ it makes itself un-care-about-able by retreating to a fantastic academic island, like theology“ only
quibble is theology is outward looking, properly done it doesn’t retreat to an island it engages the
world head on, what you’re describing is a cult, not the same thing (although some boorish people
think all religions are cults).
Kåre Fog
January 8, 2018
Two years ago, I published a Danish book with the title (translated into English): “Humaniora –
science or hot air?”. This was mainly an attack on postmodernism, including an attack on feminists
like Evelyn Fox Keller, Sandra Harding, and Judith Butler, with the main point that there is no
evidence supporting postmodernist claims. It contains thorough and detailed criticism of some of the
most crucial books and papers in the postmodernist humanistic tradition.
This book was reviewed only once – viz. in the engineers´ weekly magazine, where the reviewing
engineer liked the relevant criticism of “science” based on no evidence. But all attempts to have
anybody in the humanistic sciences read it and comment upon it, failed completely. Here, the
humanistic postmodern “science” appeared to be an isolated island, cut o$ from all communication
with other scienti"c disciplines, and completely repellant to all outside criticism. Postmodernism is
one gigantic version of The Emperor´s New Clothes, and it cannot be defended, because it has no
evidence to support it. Therefore, to survive, it cuts o$ all external criticism.
StallChaser
January 10, 2018
The main reason nobody should care is that all it is, in its entirety, is an ex post facto justi"cation of
any possible conclusion the user wants. Everything is either circular logic or doublethink, so no matter
where you start, you can get yourself to anywhere else, and that anywhere else is always going to be
whatever the feminist wants. It’s either evidence based if the evidence happens to support the
conclusion, or conspiracy theory logic (evidence against the conclusion is actually evidence for,
because it’s evidence of a bigger conspiracy to cover up the truth). Fake outrage follows a similar
pattern, where two opposite things are both bad and therefore selectively applied (racism vs
“whiteness”, cultural appropriation vs multiculturalism, etc). There’s no intellectual foundation to any
of it, so it should never be taken seriously. It should be defunded completely, because it can’t support
itself. It never produces anything of value, so it’ll just circle itself down the drain once it’s le%
unsupported. They eat their own, but (this is important) only a%er there’s nobody else they can
parasitize.
Ken
January 15, 2018
Camille Paglia was discussing this around 1992 in “Junk Bonds and Corporate Raiders” article and her
lecture at MIT.
Comments are closed.
PREVIOUS POST NEXT POST

Serwer Error: Misunderstanding Trump Voters Free Speech Le#ists Still Exist
Quillette
11,383 likes
Liked Contact Us
You like this
SEARCH
Type to search…
TOP STORIES
Damore, Diversity, and Disruption at PSU
Our Search for Meaning and the Dangers of Possession
The Behavioral Ecology of Male Violence
The Evergreen Meltdown
The Skeptical Optimist: Interview with Michael Shermer
It's Time for Evidence-Based Gender Policy
The Peterson Principle: Intellectual Complexity and Journalistic Incompetence
The Google Memo: A Counterfactual Response
Thinking Critically About Social Justice
SHARE
!
"

Why No One Cares About Feminist Theory - Quillette

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Why No One Cares About Feminist Theory - Quillette

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Why No One Cares About Feminist Theory - Quillette 26/02/2018, 15*50

Published on January 2, 2018

The real reason why these dudes can’t handle a conversation

Why Your ‘Not All Men’ Argument Is Just Sexist Hypocrisy

57 38 people are talking about this

It is true that gender studies, which conceptually encompasses feminist theory,

with an axe to grind.

hallmark characteristic of the un-care-about-able:

It’s properly esoteric like many well-developed academic disciplines.

THE CONCEPTUAL PENIS AS A SOCIAL CONSTRUCT: A

The Conceptual Penis as a Social Construct: A …

1,640 1,086 people are talking about this

accusations of potential sexism, it responded to this selection pressure not by

Taking feminist scholarship seriously: beyond the conceptual penis

Share this: Tweet Share 2.7K 35 points Share  Email  Print

$12.99 $18.50 $17.68 $26.00 $10.15 $15.99 $12.97 $16.00

(415) (405) (643) (50)

All Search Amazon Go

F I L E D U N D E R : Education, Features, Politics

1) Catharine MacKinnon and the evolution of Title IX

Pretty close I’d say.

doesn’t in!uence people” is simple but wrong.

All apologies, straight from wiki, yet…

Also see “The tipping point.” Malcolm Gladwell.

and comfort e$ectively with the other…

Feminism is the end of equality and reason.

Jane — why *do* you care?

Why do you participate in the academic version of a conspiracy theory?

How do you justify it?

caused by something other than “the patriarchy”?

David Hoyong Jeong

understanding what you are saying.

You just proved his point.

yneb on the contrary (@yneb_on)

“Are any of these “scholars” married to men?”

Of greater concern to me is whether they have sons.

Feminist journalist Julie Burchill, Fri 15 Oct 1999:

“Of greater concern to me is whether they have sons.”

So you want to complain about toxic masculinity here ? This is completely…….problematic.

the main problems, and feminism ampli"es that x100.

David Hoyong Jeong

Wow, I made a lot of spelling/grammar mistakes in my previous comment.

by the Mr. LIndsay.

Pingback: Resolutions Work. Does Yours? — Freedom Today Journal

necessary and which do produce quality research.

“Funding and budget cuts”

Lookup the Larry Summers’ story when he was president of Harvard …

At second link go to top of 3rd page

Your assertions are incoherent on several dimensions, for example:

Framing of EVERYTHING thru a concept of patriarchy and evil of all men.

Christopher Steven Day

this is so very true

and the sisterhood did not tolerate it well

Kim il Baba (@ariellabooks)

How are these for feminist in!uence:

We all have a common enemy.

Kim il Baba (@ariellabooks)

Comments are closed.

PREVIOUS POST NEXT POST

You like this

Damore, Diversity, and Disruption at PSU

Our Search for Meaning and the Dangers of Possession

The Behavioral Ecology of Male Violence

Jane — why do you care?