Comments on Philosophy, et cetera: The Ideological Bait and Switch

Oh, right, I certainly don't mean to suggest that ...

2007-08-09T06:38:00.000-04:00

Oh, right, I certainly don't mean to suggest that one should always go with the narrowest definition. I was more just criticizing the practice Julian refers to as "[expressing] frustration... about people's reluctance to self-apply the label 'feminist.'" Example: Belle Waring - "Reducing the stigma attached to being a victim of sexual assault would be a great idea. So great, that it already has a name…feminism!" That sort of approach neglects the substantive disagreements that people have.

As plausible as the view that feminists are out tr...

2007-08-09T05:55:00.000-04:00

As plausible as the view that feminists are out trying to manipulate men is, I'm afraid feminists disagree over what counts as a feminist. Actually, many feminists would disagree completely that "if you believe in gender equality, etc. voila! you're a feminist."

You recommend going for a narrower position. There is one, actually, that is super narrow. Some radical feminists believe men simply can't be feminists, period (this is doubtless because they harbor a deep hatred of the entire male race). Not very inclusive, you see. This is a topic of a lot of internal dispute within feminists, what does the 'feminist' label denote, and what should it denote.

There are more moderate positions in between, of course, but your last few lines suggest you were unaware of the existence of these narrower definitions or labeling criteria.

And indeed, these debates are, despite appearances, substantive and not merely about definitions or labels. If they were, we could simply pick something and go with that.

Yeah, that sounds helpful!(Funny link, too...)

2007-08-09T05:47:00.000-04:00

Yeah, that sounds helpful!

(Funny link, too...)

On a slightly facetious note, have you seen this: ...

2007-08-09T05:37:00.000-04:00

On a slightly facetious note, have you seen this: BlogWarBot
I found it rather amusing.

On a more serious note I agree with Julian, these sorts of disputes about names can often sidetrack the real issues. (Recall the Life of Brian)

Could this be solved by the use of that innovation of the biological sciences, the genus/species distinction?

I do this when I talk about ethical theories with my students I give them an explanation of the genus ie consequentialism and the core claims of a theory that make it consequentialist, I then give examples of specific species of consequentialism ie ethical egoism, act utilitarianism, rule utilitarianism, satsificing and so on. I think this is useful because people's intutions I think lead them to the broad theory ie the genus, but not often to a specific species. Thus if a species of theory is shown to be wrong they can always shift to a different member of that family.