I found Holly's reluctance to admit any notion of scoring when it comes to men or women having it better somewhat delusional. Whether you think of it as scoring, you are clearly making some kind of assessment if you call yourself a feminist.
She goes on and on about righting injustice. If you don't admit injustice, then you have to admit that you are just a bigot advocating for one group over the other. Therefore, it would horrify her even the thought that there wasn't injustice.
She's fairly open with the fact that she's advocating for a particular class (females), which I tend to think is the most accurate definition of being a feminist. My recollection is she does concede men have it worse in some specific instances
I couldn't even tell what her reasoning was, to be honest. Perhaps she was opposed to thinking of it as scoring, but it's at least a qualitative assessment, even if you're not thinking of it numerically.
I think feminism is best thought of as an informal trade union - it aims to advance what they perceive as the interests of women at the expense of men and children of both sexes.
Thank you for this thought-provoking debate! It was wonderful.
Part of the discussion was about whether it's OK to be friendly with members of an oppressor class (men) when you could instead resist in solidarity with other victims (women) and thereby win benefits not just for yourself but for all oppressed. Bryan, I think you missed an opportunity here, as an economist, to talk about spontaneous order: might it be that many women, each aiming for their own benefit, would produce a better result for _all_ women than they would be achieved by these same women aiming to benefit all women (but at some cost to themselves)? That is: 1,000 women _individually_ befriending men might be better for all women than those same women _collectively_ working for friendly relationships between men and women.
It seems like you and Holly agree about most of the substantive issues raised in the debate. You agree that women aren't treated more unfairly than men in present-day liberal democracies; you agree that women have, historically, suffered at least some injustices qua women at the hands of men; you agree that everyone should care about injustices suffered by women qua women; and you even agree that no one should be a feminist in the sense of "feminist" at issue in your paper.
You mainly disagree about whether "feminist" refers to those who think that women are treated more unfairly than men. But this disagreement is (literally) purely verbal.
I think you're mistaken that Holly engaged in point-scoring, if, by "point-scoring," you mean keeping track of how badly women are treated compared to men. Holly did note several ways in which women are treated badly. But she never tried to compare the ways in which women are treated badly to the ways in which men are treated badly. I think this is what she meant by saying that feminism needn't draw attention to unfairness suffered by women in order to draw attention to injustice suffered by women -- for feminists like Holly, the problem is that women are treated unjustly qua women, not that they are so treated more often than men are treated unjustly qua men.
Here is a concern I have for Holly: By the end of the debate, she seemed to have settled on an account of feminism according to which one is a feminist if they (i) think that women have been treated unjustly qua women at various times and in various places and (ii) make efforts to stop such unjust treatment. That is an exceedingly thin notion of feminism. I know very, very socially conservative people -- even ardent MAGA-ites -- who are feminists in that sense. If, in order to be a feminist, one need only be aware of and opposed to injustices suffered by women qua women, then feminism seems utterly uncontroversial.
I wonder what other criteria one must meet, in Holly's view, to count as a feminist. Adding the bit about equality that you quoted from her book would solve the problem, but she seems unhappy with that. She did bring up (and criticize) the idea that women have a nature that constrains their occupational potential -- perhaps she thinks that, in order to be a feminist, one must reject that idea. But I can imagine a social conservative who thinks that gender roles must be preserved, not because they befit men and women's natures, but merely because they maintain an optimal division of labor between the sexes (perhaps a merely locally optimal one). Such a social conservative would not be a feminist, but they could still (i) think that women have been treated unjustly qua women at various times and in various places (e.g., by being subjects of pornography), (ii) make efforts to stop such unjust treatment (e.g., by lobbying for restrictions on the distribution of pornography), and (iii) deny that women's nature constrains their occupational potential (because they think traditional gender roles are justified for non-essentialist reasons).
@1:05:45 This exchange shows exactly the issue I have with debating feminists in general, Holly included. When Bryan makes a straightforward point about feminists in her book, she cuts him off and goes into defensive mode instead of letting him finish. Then she tries to downplay it by saying those women are really “leftists first,” rather than admitting they are also feminists. It feels like an evasion. Very strange response from Holly. She cuts him off, doesn’t let the point land, and then retreats to redefining who counts as a feminist instead of grappling with the deeper criticism.
Partway through, one thing I'm noticing about the "definition of feminism" question is that Brian and Holly seem to have different ideas of Brian was up to with his "reportive definition". Holly seemed to think that Brian's project is to define the way "the folk" use the word "feminism." That doesn't seem like quite what Brian's goal is. Brian's goal seems to be: to figure out what the disagreement (or at least, the most important/central disagreement) is between people who identify as "feminists" and people who identify as "not feminists," and then to identify "feminism" as the proposition that the "feminists" in that dispute hold. That could differ wildly from what the folk think "feminism" means. And indeed, I think Brian's definition is quite different from the way "the folk" use the word, but that's not an objection to it because his project is not to identify how the folk use the word, his project (as far as I can tell) is to identify the feature that self-identified "feminists" have in common that self-identified "non-feminists" lack.
When it comes to the folk, I think it’s a kind of actions speak louder than words thing. Most folk feminists might deny that feminism means that, but they would likely accept such arguments about comparing men to women.
I appreciate the fact that Holly had a cheerful disposition. She certainly did not seem like one of them stereotypical "angry feminists"
RSVPing!
Here is the link to the debate on Apple Podcasts: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/maiden-mother-matriarch-with-louise-perry/id1671451793?i=1000720507907
See you all Saturday!
I found Holly's reluctance to admit any notion of scoring when it comes to men or women having it better somewhat delusional. Whether you think of it as scoring, you are clearly making some kind of assessment if you call yourself a feminist.
She goes on and on about righting injustice. If you don't admit injustice, then you have to admit that you are just a bigot advocating for one group over the other. Therefore, it would horrify her even the thought that there wasn't injustice.
She's fairly open with the fact that she's advocating for a particular class (females), which I tend to think is the most accurate definition of being a feminist. My recollection is she does concede men have it worse in some specific instances
When you have justice on your side, it's not point scoring apparently
I couldn't even tell what her reasoning was, to be honest. Perhaps she was opposed to thinking of it as scoring, but it's at least a qualitative assessment, even if you're not thinking of it numerically.
that's plausible. unreasonable of her, but plausible.
I think feminism is best thought of as an informal trade union - it aims to advance what they perceive as the interests of women at the expense of men and children of both sexes.
Thank you for this thought-provoking debate! It was wonderful.
Part of the discussion was about whether it's OK to be friendly with members of an oppressor class (men) when you could instead resist in solidarity with other victims (women) and thereby win benefits not just for yourself but for all oppressed. Bryan, I think you missed an opportunity here, as an economist, to talk about spontaneous order: might it be that many women, each aiming for their own benefit, would produce a better result for _all_ women than they would be achieved by these same women aiming to benefit all women (but at some cost to themselves)? That is: 1,000 women _individually_ befriending men might be better for all women than those same women _collectively_ working for friendly relationships between men and women.
It seems like you and Holly agree about most of the substantive issues raised in the debate. You agree that women aren't treated more unfairly than men in present-day liberal democracies; you agree that women have, historically, suffered at least some injustices qua women at the hands of men; you agree that everyone should care about injustices suffered by women qua women; and you even agree that no one should be a feminist in the sense of "feminist" at issue in your paper.
You mainly disagree about whether "feminist" refers to those who think that women are treated more unfairly than men. But this disagreement is (literally) purely verbal.
I think you're mistaken that Holly engaged in point-scoring, if, by "point-scoring," you mean keeping track of how badly women are treated compared to men. Holly did note several ways in which women are treated badly. But she never tried to compare the ways in which women are treated badly to the ways in which men are treated badly. I think this is what she meant by saying that feminism needn't draw attention to unfairness suffered by women in order to draw attention to injustice suffered by women -- for feminists like Holly, the problem is that women are treated unjustly qua women, not that they are so treated more often than men are treated unjustly qua men.
Here is a concern I have for Holly: By the end of the debate, she seemed to have settled on an account of feminism according to which one is a feminist if they (i) think that women have been treated unjustly qua women at various times and in various places and (ii) make efforts to stop such unjust treatment. That is an exceedingly thin notion of feminism. I know very, very socially conservative people -- even ardent MAGA-ites -- who are feminists in that sense. If, in order to be a feminist, one need only be aware of and opposed to injustices suffered by women qua women, then feminism seems utterly uncontroversial.
I wonder what other criteria one must meet, in Holly's view, to count as a feminist. Adding the bit about equality that you quoted from her book would solve the problem, but she seems unhappy with that. She did bring up (and criticize) the idea that women have a nature that constrains their occupational potential -- perhaps she thinks that, in order to be a feminist, one must reject that idea. But I can imagine a social conservative who thinks that gender roles must be preserved, not because they befit men and women's natures, but merely because they maintain an optimal division of labor between the sexes (perhaps a merely locally optimal one). Such a social conservative would not be a feminist, but they could still (i) think that women have been treated unjustly qua women at various times and in various places (e.g., by being subjects of pornography), (ii) make efforts to stop such unjust treatment (e.g., by lobbying for restrictions on the distribution of pornography), and (iii) deny that women's nature constrains their occupational potential (because they think traditional gender roles are justified for non-essentialist reasons).
@1:05:45 This exchange shows exactly the issue I have with debating feminists in general, Holly included. When Bryan makes a straightforward point about feminists in her book, she cuts him off and goes into defensive mode instead of letting him finish. Then she tries to downplay it by saying those women are really “leftists first,” rather than admitting they are also feminists. It feels like an evasion. Very strange response from Holly. She cuts him off, doesn’t let the point land, and then retreats to redefining who counts as a feminist instead of grappling with the deeper criticism.
First video im interested in seeing in a while
Partway through, one thing I'm noticing about the "definition of feminism" question is that Brian and Holly seem to have different ideas of Brian was up to with his "reportive definition". Holly seemed to think that Brian's project is to define the way "the folk" use the word "feminism." That doesn't seem like quite what Brian's goal is. Brian's goal seems to be: to figure out what the disagreement (or at least, the most important/central disagreement) is between people who identify as "feminists" and people who identify as "not feminists," and then to identify "feminism" as the proposition that the "feminists" in that dispute hold. That could differ wildly from what the folk think "feminism" means. And indeed, I think Brian's definition is quite different from the way "the folk" use the word, but that's not an objection to it because his project is not to identify how the folk use the word, his project (as far as I can tell) is to identify the feature that self-identified "feminists" have in common that self-identified "non-feminists" lack.
When it comes to the folk, I think it’s a kind of actions speak louder than words thing. Most folk feminists might deny that feminism means that, but they would likely accept such arguments about comparing men to women.
Damned feminists just want to destroy families. They hate happy women who like their husbands and their kids.
Not much of a debate. Holly can't even convince herself of what a feminist is. It's whatever she feels like at the moment it seems. Perfectly female.