3 ms·

But this is hardly unbiased. You effectively are choosing to feign cultural superiority by co-opting a native-voice that shares your criticism. Rather than shar

by Endama 8y ago

But this is hardly unbiased. You effectively are choosing to feign cultural superiority by co-opting a native-voice that shares your criticism. Rather than sharing a non-biased perspective, your hiding your voice behind a native face. This isn't sincerity in debate, it's cowardice clothed in tolerance.

ahelwer 8y ago
There is no such thing as a non-biased perspective, and feminism makes no claim to avoid bias; it's literally an ideology, with gender equality as one of its goals. The purpose of the signal-boosting strategy is to avoid patronizing echoes of "I know better" colonialism, not avoid bias. In this case we can listen to the many, many women in China who speak of the problems they face. In no sense are their voices co-opted.
- Endama 8y ago
  I'm arguing that the definition of "gender equality" you are advocating for is definitely a western one. You can't argue your definition of equality while trying to feign anti-colonialist attitudes, that's a disingenuous position. I personally don't take issue with you (or anyone for that matter) arguing for their own cultural values over another (at least then we are having an honest discussion). I can't tolerate a position that tries to feign an obviously western-centric position while virtue-signaling as culturally indifferent.
  - ahelwer 8y ago
    Anti-colonialism doesn't require moral relativism. It's as simple as that. If you want a concrete example of how signal-boosting differs from simple pushing of Western feminist opinions, the hijab debate is worth looking into. Some feminists in the hijab-wearing regions of the world see it as a tool of oppression, others not. That's a debate for them, and not for westerners to decide. If there's a vocal contingent of Chinese women pushing for the above-mentioned patriarchal Confucian values, well... I haven't yet seen it. All the Chinese women I've yet met (and had the opportunity to speak with on the subject) view sexism as a real problem, although granted I've only ever met Chinese women who came to America so selection bias is at play.

by Endama 8y ago

ahelwer 8y ago

There is no such thing as a non-biased perspective, and feminism makes no claim to avoid bias; it's literally an ideology, with gender equality as one of its goals. The purpose of the signal-boosting strategy is to avoid patronizing echoes of "I know better" colonialism, not avoid bias. In this case we can listen to the many, many women in China who speak of the problems they face. In no sense are their voices co-opted.

Endama 8y ago
I'm arguing that the definition of "gender equality" you are advocating for is definitely a western one. You can't argue your definition of equality while trying to feign anti-colonialist attitudes, that's a disingenuous position. I personally don't take issue with you (or anyone for that matter) arguing for their own cultural values over another (at least then we are having an honest discussion). I can't tolerate a position that tries to feign an obviously western-centric position while virtue-signaling as culturally indifferent.
- ahelwer 8y ago
  Anti-colonialism doesn't require moral relativism. It's as simple as that. If you want a concrete example of how signal-boosting differs from simple pushing of Western feminist opinions, the hijab debate is worth looking into. Some feminists in the hijab-wearing regions of the world see it as a tool of oppression, others not. That's a debate for them, and not for westerners to decide. If there's a vocal contingent of Chinese women pushing for the above-mentioned patriarchal Confucian values, well... I haven't yet seen it. All the Chinese women I've yet met (and had the opportunity to speak with on the subject) view sexism as a real problem, although granted I've only ever met Chinese women who came to America so selection bias is at play.