WTF is a Red Piller?

[happyninja42]

NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO!!!!!

Walk away OP....burn the thread! Salt the earth!!!!

No, that won't be enough...I'm afraid we have to call in more extreme measures...

In fealty to the God Emperor, our undying lord, I declare Exterminatus upon this Red Piller thread.

I hereby sign the death warrant of an entire thread, and consign a...few dozen souls to Oblivion.

May Imperial Justice account in All Balance.

The Emperor Protects

Yeah, as the OP of this thread, I've had my question thoroughly answered, and would be happy to see the thread die. It was not my intent to create another flame thread, just to simply get the definition of the term as it's being used on this site. I've got that at this point. xD So stop posting here! I dun wanna see it popping up to the top of the threads list as often as it is now! xD

Note: I know me saying this isn't going to actually mean shit, but hey, I thought it was worth the effort at least.

 

[sombrero_joe]

Yeah, as the OP of this thread, I've had my question thoroughly answered, and would be happy to see the thread die. It was not my intent to create another flame thread, just to simply get the definition of the term as it's being used on this site. I've got that at this point. xD So stop posting here! I dun wanna see it popping up to the top of the threads list as often as it is now! xD

Note: I know me saying this isn't going to actually mean shit, but hey, I thought it was worth the effort at least.

That's the internet gender wars for you. I think the best thing you can get out of this is that there are extremists on every side, preaching one form of ideology or another. So its best to keep your critical thinking cap on when delving into this pile of crap.

 

[Something Amyss]

Yeah, as the OP of this thread, I've had my question thoroughly answered, and would be happy to see the thread die.

You can contact a mod and request closure.

 

[Souther Thorn]

NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO!!!!!

Walk away OP....burn the thread! Salt the earth!!!!

*sigh*

[sub/]oh how I weep for the day it has bled over here from reddit[\sub]

Ok aside from what others have said...anyone seen the Disney version of hunchback if notre dame?

They think they're pheobus

They think everyone else are quasi modo

They're actually Frollo

I really love you for that metaphor, SO goddamned apt.

 

[Azure23]

See, now you are cherry picking, because it's only cherry picking when certain groups are subject to it. Or does it not count because women are the proletariat of gender or some such?

Ohh I'm not making generalisations about feminism, I understand that the people that call for androcide or violence against males are in the minority. The point is, they can't be ignored. Writers like Andrea Dworkin, Sally Miller Gearhart and Robin Morgan sadly characterise certain aspects of feminism and have made contributions to its vast bibliography.

Don't get me wrong, I have more respect for feminism than I do for MRAs but I haven't seen many MRAs call for a severe reduction in the amount of females the way that some feminists have called for reduction in males. I'm not so much cherry-picking as acknowledging that the cherries are there to be picked.

Wait wait wait waaaaait. Do you mean the same Sally Miller Gearheart who's famously quoted as saying "love is the universal truth at the center of creation?" The famous gay rights activist? Because I've really enjoyed what literature I've read from her. If you've got examples of hate speech from her I've gotta say I'm kinda devastated, I thought she was better than that. I won't argue with you on Andrea Dworkin though, except to say that she had a tough life characterized by domestic and sexual abuse at an early age, and it shows in her sex negative viewpoint and crusade against pornography.
Personally though, I don't think it's quite fair to say that feminist scholars such as Robin Morgan, who spearheaded second wave feminism, really characterize modern feminism. She certainly made contributions, I won't argue with that, but she was infamously trans phobic and that doesn't exactly mesh well with third wave feminism, as literally the most important aspect of third wave feminism is intersectionality.

Anyway I'd love to have a good discussion about this (I sincerely hope you can't produce the goods on Sally Gearheart, though considering second wave feminism, I'm entirely sure she's got some very problematic views I haven't run into yet.) and I'd like to say that I don't dislike any of the MRA's that I personally know, that is, compassionate male activists who try and address ACTUAL problems men face. I'd even count myself among them, except, the label is kinda toxic and all of the problems they're addressing are also being discussed by every feminist I know (thank you intersectionality!).
So yeah, I consider myself a third wave feminist, one who focuses on educating myself on the oppression that people who weren't born a white, straight, male experience.

 

[Dizchu]

Wait wait wait waaaaait. Do you mean the same Sally Miller Gearheart who's famously quoted as saying "love is the universal truth at the center of creation?" The famous gay rights activist? Because I've really enjoyed what literature I've read from her. If you've got examples of hate speech from her I've gotta say I'm kinda devastated, I thought she was better than that.

Not sure I'd call it "hate speech" and also not sure if it's reflective of her current views but in the 80s she wrote an essay called "The Future - if there is one - is Female" which included the gem "The proportion of men must be reduced to and maintained at approximately 10% of the human race." I applaud her for her gay rights activism but that's some pretty bizarre stuff right there. Was it satire? I'd like evidence that it wasn't sincere just because many of the other things she's said are highly agreeable.

It's quite odd actually. You'll find civil rights activists saying some crazy feminist things despite their excellent work campaigning for the rights of blacks. Gay rights activists that propose insane misandrist/misogynist/heterophobic solutions to certain things, feminists that are homophobic (recently there have been a few examples of feminists complaining that gay rights activists "don't care about women enough" and claim that there is more misogyny within the LGBT community than with straight people, all without reliable statistics of course). Not to mention the absolutely appalling transphobia found in some feminist circles.

Shrug. Everyone's got different views though. I like plenty of musicians despite their abhorrent political views. I'm still able to enjoy Earthworm Jim despite it being designed by a bigot.

Personally though, I don't think it's quite fair to say that feminist scholars such as Robin Morgan, who spearheaded second wave feminism, really characterize modern feminism. She certainly made contributions, I won't argue with that, but she was infamously trans phobic and that doesn't exactly mesh well with third wave feminism, as literally the most important aspect of third wave feminism is intersectionality.

Hmm, it seems to me as if feminism has these "waves" so they can jettison the previous one once they realise it's become too problematic. What I'd personally like to see is more of an effort to categorise feminists. The reason I personally distance myself from the label is because of the transphobia, misanthropy and misandry. Now if people made more of an effort to make these opinions distinct (I believe transphobic feminists are called Trans-Exclusionary Radical Feminists or TERFs) I'd be more willing to call myself a feminist (if I had to make up a feminist label for myself it'd be a post-gender feminist).

But feminism as it's portrayed in the media is presented as this homogeneous mass. People that want to lessen the effect of gender double-standards are lumped in with women that want to hurt men or out transwomen for "not being genuine women". It's like when Muslims that practice their religion peacefully are grouped with Muslims that behead apostates. Treating them both the same both demonises peaceful Muslims and allows the violent ones to hide behind their more tolerant counterparts.

Anyway I'd love to have a good discussion about this (I sincerely hope you can't produce the goods on Sally Gearheart, though considering second wave feminism, I'm entirely sure she's got some very problematic views I haven't run into yet.)

"The Future - if there is one - is Female" is the essay I took issue with. Maybe I'm taking it out of context but as you said, second wave feminists don't shy away from really bizarre views.

So yeah, I consider myself a third wave feminist, one who focuses on educating myself on the oppression that people who weren't born a white, straight, male experience.

That's a type of feminism I can completely sympathise with! I don't want to come off as an "anti-feminist" (a feminist critic or skeptic, maybe, but I'm not opposed to feminism). I just think self-reflection and explicit disownment of toxicity will do the movement a lot of good.

 

[Thaluikhain]

I believe transphobic feminists are called Trans-Exclusionary Radical Feminists or TERFs

Well, no. TERFs are Radical Feminists (that is, they believe in the ideology called Radical Feminism) who are transphobic. There's no reason why feminists believing in other feminist ideologies can't be transphobic (and there are far too many examples of this). Possibly there are Radical Feminists who are transphobic but aren't TERFs, I think the term is at least partially one they choose for themselves.

About categorising feminists...this does happen to an extent, but people fight about whom is what all the time. Nobody is going to admit to being a bigot, there's always some excuse. It seems that feminists spend as much time fighting each other as anything else.

 

[Schadrach]

She certainly made contributions, I won't argue with that, but she was infamously trans phobic and that doesn't exactly mesh well with third wave feminism, as literally the most important aspect of third wave feminism is intersectionality.

I'd be willing to bet one, given time, could find something in the works of any feminist author published before the 90s that is misandric or transphobic. It's less of a guarantee after that, but still better odds than not.

Anyway I'd love to have a good discussion about this (I sincerely hope you can't produce the goods on Sally Gearheart, though considering second wave feminism, I'm entirely sure she's got some very problematic views I haven't run into yet.) and I'd like to say that I don't dislike any of the MRA's that I personally know, that is, compassionate male activists who try and address ACTUAL problems men face. I'd even count myself among them, except, the label is kinda toxic and all of the problems they're addressing are also being discussed by every feminist I know (thank you intersectionality!).

You should compare notes with MRAs who were at one point feminists. Many of them have exactly the opposite experience, in which feminists they were otherwise in agreement with turned less than pleasant at the very idea that men could have problems. You also see the occasional story about something that I bet we could find feminists on this site who would agree with, like one college that changed all the men's restrooms into unisex restrooms but left the women's restrooms as they were.

So yeah, I consider myself a third wave feminist, one who focuses on educating myself on the oppression that people who weren't born a white, straight, male experience.

Weirdly, I agree with many of the claimed goals of most moderate feminists, but wildly disagree with a lot of feminist theory. Ultimately, this is because far too much of it is built on either postmodernism or marxism. Postmodernism is a terrible perspective from which to analyze anything (though it can be useful or at least interesting to see it applied in the creation of art, it's beyond worthless for any kind of analysis and tends to produce results that are unfalsifiable, do not line up with reality, or even outright meaningless [which is why the Sokal hoax was successful in the first place]). Marxism as applied to anything but wealth/economic class is also outright ridiculous, but mostly because other sorts of relationships between demographics aren't that simple, gender least of all.

 

[Something Amyss]

That's a type of feminism I can completely sympathise with!

Huh. That's new. Of course, you tried to forcibly categorise me as a second-wave feminist, so maybe it's just a "no true scotsman" thing?

 

[Something Amyss]

Well, no. TERFs are Radical Feminists (that is, they believe in the ideology called Radical Feminism) who are transphobic. There's no reason why feminists believing in other feminist ideologies can't be transphobic (and there are far too many examples of this). Possibly there are Radical Feminists who are transphobic but aren't TERFs, I think the term is at least partially one they choose for themselves.

About categorising feminists...this does happen to an extent, but people fight about whom is what all the time. Nobody is going to admit to being a bigot, there's always some excuse. It seems that feminists spend as much time fighting each other as anything else.

TERFs and TWERFs also have very specific doctrine about transpeople, though. That transwomen are "co-opting the brand," so to speak. And TWERFs have adopted the mindset that transmen are just misguided sisters, corrupted by the man/p[atriarchy/whatever.

I would also point out that TERF at least used to often be a pejorative label applied to others. But now, it seems, a lot of groups wear it with pride.

 

[Azure23]

Wait wait wait waaaaait. Do you mean the same Sally Miller Gearheart who's famously quoted as saying "love is the universal truth at the center of creation?" The famous gay rights activist? Because I've really enjoyed what literature I've read from her. If you've got examples of hate speech from her I've gotta say I'm kinda devastated, I thought she was better than that.

Not sure I'd call it "hate speech" and also not sure if it's reflective of her current views but in the 80s she wrote an essay called "The Future - if there is one - is Female" which included the gem "The proportion of men must be reduced to and maintained at approximately 10% of the human race." I applaud her for her gay rights activism but that's some pretty bizarre stuff right there. Was it satire? I'd like evidence that it wasn't sincere just because many of the other things she's said are highly agreeable.

It's quite odd actually. You'll find civil rights activists saying some crazy feminist things despite their excellent work campaigning for the rights of blacks. Gay rights activists that propose insane misandrist/misogynist/heterophobic solutions to certain things, feminists that are homophobic (recently there have been a few examples of feminists complaining that gay rights activists "don't care about women enough" and claim that there is more misogyny within the LGBT community than with straight people, all without reliable statistics of course). Not to mention the absolutely appalling transphobia found in some feminist circles.

Shrug. Everyone's got different views though. I like plenty of musicians despite their abhorrent political views. I'm still able to enjoy Earthworm Jim despite it being designed by a bigot.

Personally though, I don't think it's quite fair to say that feminist scholars such as Robin Morgan, who spearheaded second wave feminism, really characterize modern feminism. She certainly made contributions, I won't argue with that, but she was infamously trans phobic and that doesn't exactly mesh well with third wave feminism, as literally the most important aspect of third wave feminism is intersectionality.

Hmm, it seems to me as if feminism has these "waves" so they can jettison the previous one once they realise it's become too problematic. What I'd personally like to see is more of an effort to categorise feminists. The reason I personally distance myself from the label is because of the transphobia, misanthropy and misandry. Now if people made more of an effort to make these opinions distinct (I believe transphobic feminists are called Trans-Exclusionary Radical Feminists or TERFs) I'd be more willing to call myself a feminist (if I had to make up a feminist label for myself it'd be a post-gender feminist).

But feminism as it's portrayed in the media is presented as this homogeneous mass. People that want to lessen the effect of gender double-standards are lumped in with women that want to hurt men or out transwomen for "not being genuine women". It's like when Muslims that practice their religion peacefully are grouped with Muslims that behead apostates. Treating them both the same both demonises peaceful Muslims and allows the violent ones to hide behind their more tolerant counterparts.

Anyway I'd love to have a good discussion about this (I sincerely hope you can't produce the goods on Sally Gearheart, though considering second wave feminism, I'm entirely sure she's got some very problematic views I haven't run into yet.)

"The Future - if there is one - is Female" is the essay I took issue with. Maybe I'm taking it out of context but as you said, second wave feminists don't shy away from really bizarre views.

So yeah, I consider myself a third wave feminist, one who focuses on educating myself on the oppression that people who weren't born a white, straight, male experience.

That's a type of feminism I can completely sympathise with! I don't want to come off as an "anti-feminist" (a feminist critic or skeptic, maybe, but I'm not opposed to feminism). I just think self-reflection and explicit disownment of toxicity will do the movement a lot of good.

-sorry for my clumsy quoting, I'm on a tablet and this stuff is hard.

I'd like to say that you absolutely don't come off as anti feminist, you come off as an informed skeptic (the best kind) and that I really enjoyed reading your response. The fact that you brought up TERFs at all shows you care enough to educate yourself on this and not lump us all into one group. And I gotta say I really appreciate that.

I also very much agree with your suggestion that referring to different era's of feminism as "waves" is an attempt to jettison the more problematic elements of whatever group of feminist scholars dominated the time. The thing is, I don't necessarily see this as a bad thing. With the passing of years we've gotten more progressive, naturally that's shifted the focus from women's lib (an admirable movement needed at the time but mired with issues of racism) to LGB rights (very tellingly no T or Q in there) and eventually to an intersectional focus. There have always been outliers, the red stockings were always horrible, they weren't accepted even by their peers of the time. Likewise there have been pillars of feminist thought who's importance is undeniable and who have contributed to the movement as a whole but have had terrible views on important subjects (like transgender advocacy). So we relegate them to "second wave" feminism, and we call them TERFs (or TWERFS). Hell if I had my way they'd just be TERs, because I don't feel like they deserve the F at the end. I think that this is the start of the disowning of toxic elements that you've suggested, I hope that one day we're successful enough that we can count you among us.

Honestly I still feel a bit odd using inclusive language when referring to feminism, like "us" or "we." I'm a white, straight, guy (with blue eyes and blonde hair). I proudly call myself a feminist, but there are times when I wonder how valuable my experience is. But again, intersectionality, my experiences of oppression (however slight or subtle) or still important to the larger picture, and it's very comforting knowing how many people around me will advocate for me. And all they ask in return is that I try and learn about the experiences of others, which I will gladly do.

Unrelated: I'm pretty jealous of your ability to enjoy media regardless of the source. I've never been able to separate people (or their work) from their viewpoints. I remember the empathetic prose of Orson Scott Card's Children of the Mind and his pleas of inter species understanding and communication bringing tears to my eyes only to later discover that he's....well, Orson Scott Card. It felt like a betrayal.

Edit: I went and looked up that essay you mentioned, I was sorely disappointed. I don't think it was satire, I think it was a ridiculous screed that advocated for widespread use of eugenics. I am honestly pretty sad about this, but hey, no one ever said learning was painless. Thanks for the heads up.

 

[sageoftruth]

I'd never heard of it before, but my first guess was going to be that it was someone who valued unpleasant truth over pleasant ignorance, just like the red pill and the blue pill in the Matrix.

 

[Dizchu]

I'd like to say that you absolutely don't come off as anti feminist, you come off as an informed skeptic (the best kind) and that I really enjoyed reading your response. The fact that you brought up TERFs at all shows you care enough to educate yourself on this and not lump us all into one group. And I gotta say I really appreciate that.

Hey thanks, I try! TERFs are particularly troublesome to me, as a trans-person. Their arguments are insulting and ridiculous, it's like right-wing fanaticism with a feminist paint job.

Unrelated: I'm pretty jealous of your ability to enjoy media regardless of the source. I've never been able to separate people (or their work) from their viewpoints. I remember the empathetic prose of Orson Scott Card's Children of the Mind and his pleas of inter species understanding and communication bringing tears to my eyes only to later discover that he's....well, Orson Scott Card. It felt like a betrayal.

I listen to music made by actual neo-Nazis so I kinda have to separate the artist from their work. It only crosses the line for me when their bigotry shows up in the writing. If Nazis write about how beautiful nature is I can't really take issue with that. On the other hand, if Earthworm Jim stopped mid-way through a level to cite passages in the Bible that say that homosexuality is sinful I'd absolute hate that game.

Edit: I went and looked up that essay you mentioned, I was sorely disappointed. I don't think it was satire, I think it was a ridiculous screed that advocated for widespread use of eugenics. I am honestly pretty sad about this, but hey, no one ever said learning was painless. Thanks for the heads up.

I'm sorry too. It's never a good feeling when someone you admire says something terrible.

Well, no. TERFs are Radical Feminists (that is, they believe in the ideology called Radical Feminism) who are transphobic. There's no reason why feminists believing in other feminist ideologies can't be transphobic (and there are far too many examples of this). Possibly there are Radical Feminists who are transphobic but aren't TERFs, I think the term is at least partially one they choose for themselves.

Thanks for the distinction. I should've said that TERFs are a category of radical feminism that explicitly rejects transgender people and their rights. Of course other kinds of feminists can be transphobic.

About categorising feminists...this does happen to an extent, but people fight about whom is what all the time. Nobody is going to admit to being a bigot, there's always some excuse. It seems that feminists spend as much time fighting each other as anything else.

Yeah that's a good point. Maybe I was being idealistic. "How convenient would it be if all the bigoted feminists separated themselves from the rest?" It's kinda silly in retrospect, it'd be unreasonable to expect such a thing from religious groups, for example.

That's a type of feminism I can completely sympathise with!

Huh. That's new. Of course, you tried to forcibly categorise me as a second-wave feminist, so maybe it's just a "no true scotsman" thing?

Hey I never tried to categorise you as anything, let alone a second-wave feminist. I don't even recall calling you a feminist or having objections to you based purely on affiliation with the label. I'm quite fond of you, I wouldn't want to dismiss what you have to say because my jimmies were rustled.

 

[Azure23]

She certainly made contributions, I won't argue with that, but she was infamously trans phobic and that doesn't exactly mesh well with third wave feminism, as literally the most important aspect of third wave feminism is intersectionality.

I'd be willing to bet one, given time, could find something in the works of any feminist author published before the 90s that is misandric or transphobic. It's less of a guarantee after that, but still better odds than not.

Anyway I'd love to have a good discussion about this (I sincerely hope you can't produce the goods on Sally Gearheart, though considering second wave feminism, I'm entirely sure she's got some very problematic views I haven't run into yet.) and I'd like to say that I don't dislike any of the MRA's that I personally know, that is, compassionate male activists who try and address ACTUAL problems men face. I'd even count myself among them, except, the label is kinda toxic and all of the problems they're addressing are also being discussed by every feminist I know (thank you intersectionality!).

You should compare notes with MRAs who were at one point feminists. Many of them have exactly the opposite experience, in which feminists they were otherwise in agreement with turned less than pleasant at the very idea that men could have problems. You also see the occasional story about something that I bet we could find feminists on this site who would agree with, like one college that changed all the men's restrooms into unisex restrooms but left the women's restrooms as they were.

So yeah, I consider myself a third wave feminist, one who focuses on educating myself on the oppression that people who weren't born a white, straight, male experience.

Weirdly, I agree with many of the claimed goals of most moderate feminists, but wildly disagree with a lot of feminist theory. Ultimately, this is because far too much of it is built on either postmodernism or marxism. Postmodernism is a terrible perspective from which to analyze anything (though it can be useful or at least interesting to see it applied in the creation of art, it's beyond worthless for any kind of analysis and tends to produce results that are unfalsifiable, do not line up with reality, or even outright meaningless [which is why the Sokal hoax was successful in the first place]). Marxism as applied to anything but wealth/economic class is also outright ridiculous, but mostly because other sorts of relationships between demographics aren't that simple, gender least of all.

I can only speak for my own experiences of course, and my experiences with the feminist movement and the feminists in my life have been overwhelmingly positive, unfortunately I don't actually know any men's rights advocates who were formerly feminists, although I do know a few who identify as both. Generally my rule of thumb for judging MRA's is as follows: if they spend the majority of their time and effort discussing problems that women have inflicted on them, I tend to ignore them. But if they spend their time discussing saaaay, the disproportionate incarceration of men of color and a culture of institutionalized machismo, I'm 100% more likely to listen to them (I suppose I just believe that quite a few Men's rights issues are really men of color's issues). Also yes, I completely agree with the idea that postmodernism is useless as anything but an intellectual exercise to apply to certain things. And ugh, don't get me started on the Sokal Affair, "hey guys, it turns out higher academia can be a huge circle jerk and not do anything useful!" Postmodernism: nothing is provable, no one is wrong, what a bunch of bullshit.

I would however disagree that postmodernism or Marxism characterizes feminism. Sure, a few noted feminist scholars liked deconstructionism and examining EVERYTHING through that particular lens. But intersectionality characterizes mainstream third wave feminism. Or at least it has overwhelmingly in my experience. But again, that's the experience I've had, those are the types of feminists I know, that's the kind of advocacy I've been involved in.

 

[Colour Scientist]

Every time I see this thread title I think it's going to be about postboxes. I'm not one who learns.

Don't be ridiculous, everyone knows that postboxes are green.

 

[Secondhand Revenant]

Uhh no. That is not the worst I see from MRAs and red pill people.

And pointing out instances of MRA etc douchebaggery isn't cherry picking.

If you look at (fairly prominent) feminist literature throughout the 20th century you'll find extreme fantasies that involved male genocide.

I know MRAs are douchebags but apart from Elliot Rodger I haven't heard anything on the same level. Oh and it'll most likely never get published.

Not particularly worried about mere fantasies that they do not seem to be realizing and that do not seem to have any significant support.

I think realistic goals that are negative are worse than fantastical negative goals every time.

 

[ZeroFarks]

Odd, I always see "redpill" as slang for someone who hacks on MMOs, in particular FPS games. Aimbot users and whatnot.

 

[Schadrach]

I can only speak for my own experiences of course, and my experiences with the feminist movement and the feminists in my life have been overwhelmingly positive, unfortunately I don't actually know any men's rights advocates who were formerly feminists, although I do know a few who identify as both. Generally my rule of thumb for judging MRA's is as follows: if they spend the majority of their time and effort discussing problems that women have inflicted on them, I tend to ignore them.

I imagine if I gender flipped that and disregarded feminists who discuss problems that men have inflicted on them, I could cut the list of feminists to consider short pretty easily. Also, does that mean you disregard men who's complaints deal with the family court system or who have been victims of abusive relationships that they couldn't get help with because nearly all the help that exists will refuse to help men, except for the police who in many places will arrest the man even if he's the victim because that's police policy?

But if they spend their time discussing saaaay, the disproportionate incarceration of men of color and a culture of institutionalized machismo, I'm 100% more likely to listen to them (I suppose I just believe that quite a few Men's rights issues are really men of color's issues).

Men are disproportionately incarcerated, people of color are disproportionately incarcerated (especially black folks). Whether being male or black is a stronger influence on your punishment depends largely on the crime in question. I'd rather be a white man than a black woman if I was brought in on a drug charge, but I'd rather be a black woman than a white man if I was brought in for some kind of violent crime.

It's worth noting that no one is going to suggest that white people shouldn't be thrown in prison at all, while at least one UK MP is arguing that women shouldn't be subjected to prison, at all.

Also yes, I completely agree with the idea that postmodernism is useless as anything but an intellectual exercise to apply to certain things. And ugh, don't get me started on the Sokal Affair, "hey guys, it turns out higher academia can be a huge circle jerk and not do anything useful!" Postmodernism: nothing is provable, no one is wrong, what a bunch of bullshit.

Yep, this paper [http://www.physics.nyu.edu/sokal/transgress_v2/transgress_v2_singlefile.html] being published gets used as an example of why postmodernism is a problem as a result. The entire paper is intentionally nonsense with big words. I do love the idea of textual interpretation of quantum gravity transforming it, though.

Of course my favorite example of nonsensical postmodern analysis was Luce Irigaray. Things like arguing that e=mc^2 is a sexed equation because it privileges the speed of light, or that we understand rigid body mechanics better than fluid mechanics not because the math is simpler, but because most physicists are male, rigid bodies are associated with the penis, and fluids are associated with menstruation which is *why* the math for rigid body mechanics is simpler. Don't you see, the laws of physics themselves are sexist!

I would however disagree that postmodernism or Marxism characterizes feminism. Sure, a few noted feminist scholars liked deconstructionism and examining EVERYTHING through that particular lens. But intersectionality characterizes mainstream third wave feminism. Or at least it has overwhelmingly in my experience. But again, that's the experience I've had, those are the types of feminists I know, that's the kind of advocacy I've been involved in.

I brought up Marxism because a lot of feminist academic theory (and accordingly a lot of writing by people educated in same but outside of academia) is built upon Marxist theories, simply swapping bourgeois with men and proletariat with women. Feminist perspectives on standpoint theory are a good example of this in action.