5 ms·

While I am not a big fan of contemporary feminism, I am pretty sure taking issue with masculinity or "gendered" text is not the same thing as taking issue with

While I am not a big fan of contemporary feminism, I am pretty sure taking issue with masculinity or "gendered" text is not the same thing as taking issue with objectivity. Edit: Found this quote in your source "Poststructuralism “rejects objectivity and the notions of an absolute truth and single reality,”" Hmm, this seems an awful lot like a religion.

hx87 10y ago
It's pretty trivial to take the Ibn Warraq approach, though: just reject poststructuralism itself.
zeveb 10y ago
> I am pretty sure taking issue with masculinity or "gendered" text is not the same thing as taking issue with objectivity. Well, since English is a gendered language, taking issue with 'gendered' text is taking issue with the objective reality that … English is a gendered language.
- alphonsegaston 10y ago
  Aside from things like pronouns, English hasn't been gendered since the 14th century: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_in_English https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_in_English
  - zeveb 10y ago
    'Aside from that Mrs. Lincoln, how was the play?' Pronouns are precisely what folks who complain about gender in English are complaining about (well, that and words like 'mankind').
    - alphonsegaston 10y ago
      Glibness aside, the usage of gendered pronouns does not make a language gendered. That's only true if there has to be agreement between the gender of a noun and words relating to the noun. And it's also not what people are arguing. Instead, they argue that gendered terms are the product of cultural norms and prescriptive grammar that reinforce gender roles that are oppressive to both men and women. That some view these assignments as objective when that's untrue linguistically and historically, I think only lends credence to their point.
jfoutz 10y ago
I'm not in any sense an expert. A lot of it seems to boil down to what assumptions are implicit. When you consider something like math, you can pin down what axioms have what consequences. This set of rules produces a group, adding some more axioms produces a field, things like that. When you get to more ordinary stuff like living life, it's not clear what axioms you picked, vs what axioms i picked. Most people don't think about it at all. Imagine a coworker that just started showing up topless. That would be freakishly weird. But really, in a professional setting, why would it matter? There are some handwavy arguments about the nature of professionalism, but all of that relies on what axioms you pick for your culture. Anyway. We all have these ideas about how we're supposed to interact, but we're all playing by different rules. So you get into these Wittgenstein kinds of discussions.

hx87 10y ago

It's pretty trivial to take the Ibn Warraq approach, though: just reject poststructuralism itself.

zeveb 10y ago

> I am pretty sure taking issue with masculinity or "gendered" text is not the same thing as taking issue with objectivity. Well, since English is a gendered language, taking issue with 'gendered' text is taking issue with the objective reality that … English is a gendered language.

alphonsegaston 10y ago
Aside from things like pronouns, English hasn't been gendered since the 14th century: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_in_English https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_in_English
- zeveb 10y ago
  'Aside from that Mrs. Lincoln, how was the play?' Pronouns are precisely what folks who complain about gender in English are complaining about (well, that and words like 'mankind').
  - alphonsegaston 10y ago
    Glibness aside, the usage of gendered pronouns does not make a language gendered. That's only true if there has to be agreement between the gender of a noun and words relating to the noun. And it's also not what people are arguing. Instead, they argue that gendered terms are the product of cultural norms and prescriptive grammar that reinforce gender roles that are oppressive to both men and women. That some view these assignments as objective when that's untrue linguistically and historically, I think only lends credence to their point.

jfoutz 10y ago

I'm not in any sense an expert. A lot of it seems to boil down to what assumptions are implicit. When you consider something like math, you can pin down what axioms have what consequences. This set of rules produces a group, adding some more axioms produces a field, things like that. When you get to more ordinary stuff like living life, it's not clear what axioms you picked, vs what axioms i picked. Most people don't think about it at all. Imagine a coworker that just started showing up topless. That would be freakishly weird. But really, in a professional setting, why would it matter? There are some handwavy arguments about the nature of professionalism, but all of that relies on what axioms you pick for your culture. Anyway. We all have these ideas about how we're supposed to interact, but we're all playing by different rules. So you get into these Wittgenstein kinds of discussions.