Thunderf00t and feminism

[DrZoidberg]

If you don't know about him, Thunderf00t is a nuclear scientist who makes videos bashing pseudoscience. I strongly recommend his videos. Some of them are comedy gold.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VuxEwjBXlZE

But he also spends an inordinate amount of time bashing feminism. Don't get me wrong, I like Thunderf00t and I agree with all his points. He's not attacking feminism broadly. He's just attacking dumb-ass feminism. Which becomes apparent when you listen to him a bit. He's also epically socially dysfunctional which is hilariously apparent in interviews. My hat off to him for doing it though. The world needs more awkward nerds daring to take the world stage.

My question is this: is populist feminist demagogues such a huge problem really? I do live in Sweden, where these people have more of an impact that probably anywhere else. But it's not a huge problem. Most people laugh at them here as well. Even liberals.

 

[bigfield]

I've watched a couple of Thunderf00t's videos on feminism and found them to be biased, petty and obnoxious, which is disappointing because his videos attacking science-illiterate theists are very good.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

It's only a problem if you're a Real Man (tm) and your tough-as-nails, rugged individualism manifests itself by making you act like a delicate snowflake who can't hear trigger phrases outside of your safe space. Other than that, not so much.

 

[DrZoidberg]

It's only a problem if you're a Real Man (tm) and your tough-as-nails, rugged individualism manifests itself by making you act like a delicate snowflake who can't hear trigger phrases outside of your safe space. Other than that, not so much.

If I understand Thunderf00t's main criticism, it isn't so much that he feels threatened. But that feminist theory is fundamentally literary criticism. Feminism as in feminist rights is something quite different from feminist theory. And as literary criticism feminist theories function is to question. Not come with solutions, or be a plan for change. It's simply a guide to help us shift perspectives when looking at films, reading books or interpreting sociology papers (like Derida's deconstructionism). All that is great and genuinely helpful. But that's where the greatness stops.

When feminist theory used used straight out the box to inform policy then it's the worst kind of pseudo science. That's when we get all the idiocy. And since his main contention is with pseudo science I understand the connection.

 

[bigfield]

It's only a problem if you're a Real Man (tm) and your tough-as-nails, rugged individualism manifests itself by making you act like a delicate snowflake who can't hear trigger phrases outside of your safe space. Other than that, not so much.

If I understand Thunderf00t's main criticism, it isn't so much that he feels threatened. But that feminist theory is fundamentally literary criticism. Feminism as in feminist rights is something quite different from feminist theory. And as literary criticism feminist theories function is to question. Not come with solutions, or be a plan for change. It's simply a guide to help us shift perspectives when looking at films, reading books or interpreting sociology papers (like Derida's deconstructionism). All that is great and genuinely helpful. But that's where the greatness stops.

You've described feminist theory as a methodology, not a theory in the scientific sense of the word. A scientific theory explains a phenomenon in nature. What does feminist theory explain, and what scientific research is it based upon?

sociology papers (like Derida's deconstructionism)

Jacques Derrida is not a sociologist but a philosopher, and deconstructionism is philosophy.

 

[skepticalbip]

Interesting video. All those who continue to claim that those who didn't vote for Hillary were "sexist" should watch. But then it would probably be sexist to suggest such a thing.

 

[DrZoidberg]

If I understand Thunderf00t's main criticism, it isn't so much that he feels threatened. But that feminist theory is fundamentally literary criticism. Feminism as in feminist rights is something quite different from feminist theory. And as literary criticism feminist theories function is to question. Not come with solutions, or be a plan for change. It's simply a guide to help us shift perspectives when looking at films, reading books or interpreting sociology papers (like Derida's deconstructionism). All that is great and genuinely helpful. But that's where the greatness stops.

You've described feminist theory as a methodology, not a theory in the scientific sense of the word.

You've just described the difference between hard and soft science. Whether soft science really is science is a debate that will continue well after the last human has died has had their consciousness uploaded to a computer. Into eternity. The hard science guy will be condescending. All the time. Into eternity.

A scientific theory explains something. What does feminist theory explain,

Gender differences. Or it attempts to.

and what scientific research is it based upon?

Because it's literary criticism it doesn't have to rest on much at all, besides pure logic. It can rest on philosophy or something you just pulled out your ass.

Feminist theory usually, at some point, rests on sociological or psychological research. Also soft as hell.

sociology papers (like Derida's deconstructionism)

Jacques Derrida is not a sociologist but a philosopher, and deconstructionism is philosophy.

In the 20'th century the border between sociology and philosophy became blurred. As sciences go it's soft as hell.

 

[bigfield]

You've described feminist theory as a methodology, not a theory in the scientific sense of the word.

You've just described the difference between hard and soft science. Whether soft science really is science is a debate that will continue well after the last human has died has had their consciousness uploaded to a computer. Into eternity. The hard science guy will be condescending. All the time. Into eternity.

Even within soft sciences, the fact remains that a theory ought to explain something. You've described feminist theory as a guide and that it's function is to question. The function of science in general is to question; that quality alone cannot make a theory, regardless of how soft the science.

A scientific theory explains something. What does feminist theory explain,

Gender differences. Or it attempts to.

Then it does not exist merely to question, but to explain the nature of an aspect of human society.

and what scientific research is it based upon?

Because it's literary criticism it doesn't have to rest on much at all, besides pure logic. It can rest on philosophy or something you just pulled out your ass.

Then it isn't science but philosophy.

Feminist theory usually, at some point, rests on sociological or psychological research. Also soft as hell.

This is contradictory to your previous claim that feminist theory is fundamentally literary criticism, unless you are saying that feminist theory is literary criticism that draws on social science articles to support its arguments about said literature. That kind of work belongs in the humanities alongside classes on Shakespeare.

sociology papers (like Derida's deconstructionism)

Jacques Derrida is not a sociologist but a philosopher, and deconstructionism is philosophy.

In the 20'th century the border between sociology and philosophy became blurred. As sciences go it's soft as hell.

Nonetheless it is incorrect to describe Derrida as sociology and deconstructionism as sociology--the line is not so blurred.

 

[bigfield]

My question is this: is populist feminist demagogues such a huge problem really? I do live in Sweden, where these people have more of an impact that probably anywhere else. But it's not a huge problem. Most people laugh at them here as well. Even liberals.

What would it take for you to consider something a huge problem?

I don't think Kent Hovind is a huge problem but Young Earth Creationism is a huge problem. Attacking Hovind provides a response to the entire group of people who agree with him.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DanPOPBsOao

Thunderf00t's anti-theists videos are good because you can generalise the response to anyone who uses Hovind's arguments.

If I understand Thunderf00t's main criticism, it isn't so much that he feels threatened. But that feminist theory is fundamentally literary criticism. Feminism as in feminist rights is something quite different from feminist theory. And as literary criticism feminist theories function is to question. Not come with solutions, or be a plan for change. It's simply a guide to help us shift perspectives when looking at films, reading books or interpreting sociology papers (like Derida's deconstructionism). All that is great and genuinely helpful. But that's where the greatness stops.

Thunderf00t's attacks feminism as literary criticism in Feminism vs Facts, where he responds to Anita Sarkeesian's Tropes vs Women videos.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QJeX6F-Q63I&list=PLQJW3WMsx1q3BAZh3XsK1cSwCiaqjSulc

Thunderf00t goes off the rails at about the midway point with his 'pop-culture critic-ovision' but before that he manages to make some reasonable objections. By providing his own interpretations, he illustrates that Sarkeesian's argument are very similar to an approach I learned when I took English literature at uni: make whatever claims you like as long as you point to something in the source material as evidence.

A memorable example is the symbolism of the splintered chestnut tree in Jane Eyre:

"I faced the wreck of the chestnut-tree; it stood up, black and riven: the trunk, split down the centre, gasped ghastly. The cloven halves were not broken from each other, for the firm base and strong roots kept them unsundered below; though the community of vitality was destroyed - the sap could flow no more: their great boughs on each side were dead, and next winter's tempests would be sure to fell one or both to earth: as yet, however, they might be said to form one tree - a ruin, but an entire ruin".​

The chestnut tree is hit by lightning on the night that Mr. Rochester and Jane get engaged (261). The chestnut tree symbolizes Jane and Mr. Rochester's relationship, and is foreshadowing to what's ahead for them. The halves of the tree are apart but still connected by a firm base. Mr. Rochester and Jane are apart for a whole year, yet still manage to find each other again because their love is so strong. While they were apart, they both felt incredibly sad, just as the two halves of the tree were dead. Over the year they were apart, Mr. Rochester becomes crippled, which is similar to one of the halves falling down over winter. Their relationship, or the future of it at this point, is a ruin, but it is a whole one. They will be split apart and face many challenges, but they will still be one "tree", together, even though they're broken.

http://breatheyre.blogspot.com.au/p/literary-devices-thornf.html

This kind of creative analysis is entirely fucken pointless, which describes all of the time I wasted in English subjects when I should have been something useful.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Gender differences. Or it attempts to.

Then it does not exist merely to question, but to explain the nature of an aspect of human society.

I didn't make the words up. I'm just explaining the words they're using. I find it odd that any of the soft sciences are allowed to use the term "science" at all. To me it's a different activity all together. But I can either use the words the way I think they should be used or say stuff that is intelligible to other people.

Then it isn't science but philosophy.

That's your opinion (and mine). It doesn't change the fact that they're using the word "theory" to describe their discipline.

This is contradictory to your previous claim that feminist theory is fundamentally literary criticism, unless you are saying that feminist theory is literary criticism that draws on social science articles to support its arguments about said literature. That kind of work belongs in the humanities alongside classes on Shakespeare.

It is fundamentally literary criticism and it's being used (in spite of this and wrongly) as a science and theory.

sociology papers (like Derida's deconstructionism)

Jacques Derrida is not a sociologist but a philosopher, and deconstructionism is philosophy.

In the 20'th century the border between sociology and philosophy became blurred. As sciences go it's soft as hell.

Nonetheless it is incorrect to describe Derrida as sociology and deconstructionism as sociology--the line is not so blurred.

I raise you with Emile Durkheim, Max Weber, Herbert Spencer and the entire field of economics. It doesn't matter how fancy your maths are all the basic data that underpins it has huge problems. Defining those data swerve well into the realm of philosophy. Any sociologists that questions that are delusional. The philosopher Foucault based his entire philosophy on empirical sociological research. blur blur blur

 

[DrZoidberg]

What would it take for you to consider something a huge problem?

If they're ever used out in the real world as necessary justification (on it's own) to push through policy. I haven't seen that yet. I'm not saying it hasn't happened. I'm just not aware of it.

I don't think Kent Hovind is a huge problem but Young Earth Creationism is a huge problem. Attacking Hovind provides a response to the entire group of people who agree with him.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DanPOPBsOao

Thunderf00t's anti-theists videos are good because you can generalise the response to anyone who uses Hovind's arguments.

I applaud Thunderf00t for his videos. I don't want him to stop. The world is only made better by having a variety of views presented. Intelligent anti-feminist ranters are in short supply. Most of that crowd are horrible misogynistic sexist people. Thunderf00t is clearly none of those. He seems to be a stand up guy.

This kind of creative analysis is entirely fucken pointless, which describes all of the time I wasted in English subjects when I should have been something useful.

Don't agree. I think this type of creative analysis is very valuable. Anything to help us shift perspectives is always valuable.

Judith Butler's Gender Trouble is fantastic. That's the most famous feminist source material currently. I highly recommend it. There's just so much that is coded as female or male for no apparent reason. She highlights it very well in that book.

Look, I believe that men and women are biologically different. But I also believe that we exaggerate innate masculinity and innate femininity. For no real reason. Butler explains it as "performative gender". It isn't enough to be ourselves in our genders, we also have to perform our gender. There's just so much in our culture geared around advertising gender that it makes me wonder. And if I hadn't read that book I might never have thought of it. There's just so much we take for granted in our culture around gender that it severely limits us. I would love to wear a short skirt on a hot summers day. But I wouldn't. I would find it uncomfortable because I identify as a man and I would find it unnatural to go around in a skirt or a dress. I'd also have to do a lot of explaining, which I'd rather not. There's tonnes of examples like this.

Both men and women are clearly insecure in their gender roles. Or they wouldn't keep going on and on about it. Once you see it you can't unsee it. So much of human life is a desperate attempt to come across as more manly or more ladylike. Once you see it you'll find it absurd. I do.

 

[bigfield]

Then it does not exist merely to question, but to explain the nature of an aspect of human society.

I didn't make the words up. I'm just explaining the words they're using. I find it odd that any of the soft sciences are allowed to use the term "science" at all. To me it's a different activity all together. But I can either use the words the way I think they should be used or say stuff that is intelligible to other people.

Then it isn't science but philosophy.

That's your opinion (and mine). It doesn't change the fact that they're using the word "theory" to describe their discipline.

This is contradictory to your previous claim that feminist theory is fundamentally literary criticism, unless you are saying that feminist theory is literary criticism that draws on social science articles to support its arguments about said literature. That kind of work belongs in the humanities alongside classes on Shakespeare.

It is fundamentally literary criticism and it's being used (in spite of this and wrongly) as a science and theory.

sociology papers (like Derida's deconstructionism)

Jacques Derrida is not a sociologist but a philosopher, and deconstructionism is philosophy.

In the 20'th century the border between sociology and philosophy became blurred. As sciences go it's soft as hell.

Nonetheless it is incorrect to describe Derrida as sociology and deconstructionism as sociology--the line is not so blurred.

I raise you with Emile Durkheim, Max Weber, Herbert Spencer and the entire field of economics. It doesn't matter how fancy your maths are all the basic data that underpins it has huge problems. Defining those data swerve well into the realm of philosophy. Any sociologists that questions that are delusional. The philosopher Foucault based his entire philosophy on empirical sociological research. blur blur blur

Since I'm not prepared to dive into the rabbit hole that is feminist theory, I'll grant that feminist theory, as literary theory, is probably being applied within the soft sciences.


I'll also grant that the line between sociology and philosophy is very blurred, but I maintain that Deconstructionism isn't sociology. I don't know why you mentioned Durkheim--he was an early proponent of positivist sociology inspired by Comte.

 

[DrZoidberg]

I'll also grant that the line between sociology and philosophy is very blurred, but I maintain that Deconstructionism isn't sociology. I don't know why you mentioned Durkheim--he was an early proponent of positivist sociology inspired by Comte.

Emile Durkheim himself certainly thought he was a philosopher.

 

[bigfield]

Look, I believe that men and women are biologically different. But I also believe that we exaggerate innate masculinity and innate femininity. For no real reason. Butler explains it as "performative gender". It isn't enough to be ourselves in our genders, we also have to perform our gender. There's just so much in our culture geared around advertising gender that it makes me wonder. And if I hadn't read that book I might never have thought of it. There's just so much we take for granted in our culture around gender that it severely limits us. I would love to wear a short skirt on a hot summers day. But I wouldn't. I would find it uncomfortable because I identify as a man and I would find it unnatural to go around in a skirt or a dress. I'd also have to do a lot of explaining, which I'd rather not. There's tonnes of examples like this.

I'm not sure I understand; you had to read Butler to figure out that clothing is gendered?

But I also believe that we exaggerate innate masculinity and innate femininity. For no real reason.

How did you come to this conclusion? I would have guessed instead that gender cues exist because humans are a sexually-selective species.

 

[Angry Floof]

My question is this: is populist feminist demagogues such a huge problem really? I do live in Sweden, where these people have more of an impact that probably anywhere else. But it's not a huge problem. Most people laugh at them here as well. Even liberals.

Fuck no, it isn't a huge problem. It just triggers the male ego quite a bit, particularly the kind of men who downplay abuse of women while over blowing some stuff that hurts their feelings. These men need to be laughed at as much as possible.

I don't know Thunderf00t and I don't give a shit what he thinks about anything, but I do know that good men often go along with whatever jokes or violent language or demonization of women because that is what they are conditioned to do, intelligent men who otherwise hold no ill will or prejudice and do not prey on women. What they don't seem to be aware of, though, is that every joke and demeaning comment they accept as normal just makes the world a nicer, more welcoming place for men who do.

 

[bigfield]

I'll also grant that the line between sociology and philosophy is very blurred, but I maintain that Deconstructionism isn't sociology. I don't know why you mentioned Durkheim--he was an early proponent of positivist sociology inspired by Comte.

Emile Durkheim himself certainly thought he was a philosopher.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Émile_Durkheim

David Émile Durkheim...was a French sociologist, social psychologist and philosopher.

It's possible for a person to wear different hats. What hat was Durkheim wearing when he researched and wrote Suicide?

 

[bigfield]

If they're ever used out in the real world as necessary justification (on it's own) to push through policy. I haven't seen that yet. I'm not saying it hasn't happened. I'm just not aware of it.

That seems like a reasonable criterion, and I also haven't seen any effects.

For example, Anita Sarkeesian, one of Thunderf00t's favourite feminists, has made a lot of money and gained a lot of fame but her ideas haven't actually changed anything in the gaming industry. And even if change did happen, I'm not sure I'd care.

 

[DrZoidberg]

I'm not sure I understand; you had to read Butler to figure out that clothing is gendered?

The interesting bit isn't that they are gendered but why they are gendered (for no real reason).

A great example is programming. The profession of computer programming grew out of the computing profession. These were typically women, calculating sums in banks. It's a kind of specialized secretary. And anything secreterial was completely dominated by women. So when the computer industry started all the programmers were women. A most a man would design the program, (on paper). That's the maths. But the computer programmer would take the calculations and turn them into code. So the university courses for computer programmers, from the 50'ies right up into the 80'ies, were completely dominated by women. Then just within a couple of years it switched around to being completely dominated by men. The computer nerd trope was born in a time when 99% of all programmers were women. The media image did not reflect reality. It was based on nothing but image.

So what happened? Why did women stop coding? It's because of toys. Soft toys are gendered for women. Hard toys are gendered for men. When Personal computers and Ataris started to appear they just weren't given to girls as toys. They were almost only given to boys. Women didn't have access to computers to the same degree men did so had no way of practicing on their own. What happened during that year in the 80'ies was that the programming courses started assuming that you were already familiar with computers and could do a little programming even before you began. Just because women didn't have parents who thought they might enjoy computers, (which they obviously did before this) generations of women programming careers were just killed. When I started in the IT business as a programmer in the 90'ies female programmers were rare. Just fifteen years before I came into it male programmers were rare.

This is history, and fact. Also a fucking tragedy. And it comes down to nothing but gender associations. And the taboo around working with something that is for the other gender. A man working in a female dominated industry is typically seen as effeminate and weak. While a women in a male dominated job is often seen as butch or a lesbian. An incredible fucking tragedy. It is so sad and pathetic. And a waste of energy.

But I also believe that we exaggerate innate masculinity and innate femininity. For no real reason.

How did you come to this conclusion? I would have guessed instead that gender cues exist because humans are a sexually-selective species.

If we're so great at picking up gender cues why do we need to exaggerate gender expression? Shouldn't reality be enough? After all, we have evolved for it.

My theory is that when we were hunter gatherers it just sorted itself out. There was no need to exaggerate gender. It was all pretty obvious. Nobody had to make an effort. But now we live in cities, and wear clothing. drive cars, hunt for food with credit cards and go to the hair dresser. I think it fucks with our instincts. It makes us insecure, in general, but also specifically about what we're attracted to and why. So gender is partly something we are but partly a performance. We're trying to fool others as much as ourselves. That's my theory supported by nothing but my own speculations.

- - - Updated - - -

Emile Durkheim himself certainly thought he was a philosopher.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Émile_Durkheim

David Émile Durkheim...was a French sociologist, social psychologist and philosopher.

It's possible for a person to wear different hats. What hat was Durkheim wearing when he researched and wrote Suicide?

Durkheim didn't invent sociology. That all happened after the fact, by his disciples. He was just doing philosophy.

 

[bigfield]

The interesting bit isn't that they are gendered but why they are gendered (for no real reason).

A great example is programming. The profession of computer programming grew out of the computing profession. These were typically women, calculating sums in banks. It's a kind of specialized secretary. And anything secreterial was completely dominated by women. So when the computer industry started all the programmers were women. A most a man would design the program, (on paper). That's the maths. But the computer programmer would take the calculations and turn them into code. So the university courses for computer programmers, from the 50'ies right up into the 80'ies, were completely dominated by women. Then just within a couple of years it switched around to being completely dominated by men. The computer nerd trope was born in a time when 99% of all programmers were women. The media image did not reflect reality. It was based on nothing but image.

Based on your description, it appears that the special-purpose secretary has been replaced by high-level languages, compilers and interpreters, and the program designer is now the modern programmer.

But I also believe that we exaggerate innate masculinity and innate femininity. For no real reason.

How did you come to this conclusion? I would have guessed instead that gender cues exist because humans are a sexually-selective species.

If we're so great at picking up gender cues why do we need to exaggerate gender expression? Shouldn't reality be enough? After all, we have evolved for it.

My theory is that when we were hunter gatherers it just sorted itself out. There was no need to exaggerate gender. It was all pretty obvious. Nobody had to make an effort. But now we live in cities, and wear clothing. drive cars, hunt for food with credit cards and go to the hair dresser. I think it fucks with our instincts. It makes us insecure, in general, but also specifically about what we're attracted to and why. So gender is partly something we are but partly a performance. We're trying to fool others as much as ourselves. That's my theory supported by nothing but my own speculations.

There is a greater degree of sexual dimorphism in humans than in other apes. In order for this to happen, hominids must have preferred mates who had more pronounced sexual traits. There is nothing to suggest that humans lost that preference, and similarly, there is no reason to think that humans ever reached a point where greater sexual dimorphism ceased to be preferable; sexual selection never "sorted itself out".

Humans are also competitive. Why let a more feminine woman, or a more masculine man, claim the most desirable mates when one can enhance one's own desirability through artificial means? You claim that 'nobody had to make an effort' but I suspect that Homo sapiens simply hadn't yet invented the means to cheat the mating system.

Even hunter gatherer tribes employed sex-specific clothing, makeup and ornament, which undermines your claim that hunter-gatherers had no need to exaggerate gender.

Emile Durkheim himself certainly thought he was a philosopher.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Émile_Durkheim

David Émile Durkheim...was a French sociologist, social psychologist and philosopher.

It's possible for a person to wear different hats. What hat was Durkheim wearing when he researched and wrote Suicide?

Durkheim didn't invent sociology. That all happened after the fact, by his disciples. He was just doing philosophy.

By that same reasoning, Isaac Newton wasn't a physicist because he was just doing natural philosophy, and therefore the line between physics and philosophy is blurred.

 

[Angry Floof]

Turns out cats are already working on the problem.

All hail the rise of cat men, an antidote to toxic masculinity