DiscussionI don't know

submitted by [deleted] from self.LGBDropTheT

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]endless_assfluff 8 insightful - 2 fun8 insightful - 1 fun9 insightful - 2 fun -  (8 children)

I'm also not interested in the reasons why you want to distance from GC/radical feminism. Please don't waste time explaining it to me.

^

That being said, I don't think you're not worth my time! On the contrary, I posted what I did because I can see you're trying to improve and might appreciate a push toward studying emotional intelligence, which is exactly what one would do to develop the skills you say you value in the original post. If you reread my statement, it clearly says "I am not interested in discussing this one particular thing," not "I don't think you're worth my time."

I don't know whether there are other non-radfem LGB academics. All I know is what's going on in my one cohort, and that if I have a super-dry essay from a philosophy professor or something from PubMed to post, it goes on the GC sub and not here. I don't like pushing my credentials online because it's usually not relevant, but to put things in perspective, I'm a mathematician, and am far from the only radical feminist I know who holds a PhD in a relevant area and likes doing the type of measured analysis you're talking about. And it's tiring for me to try and engage with people who don't understand what I'm saying---but think they do, and surprise, surprise, it's always something devoid of nuance & easier to argue with than what I actually said---or who have the impression that radical feminists are angry extremists, so much so that I often have to go months without commenting.

Anyway. What I'm saying is, there's a huge correlation between people who work to develop the skills you value and people who realize that radical means 'root' and not 'fueled by blind hate.' That's why so many high-level discussions are happening elsewhere and in conjunction with radfems. I hope you can join us someday.

[–]Elvira95Viva la figa 5 insightful - 4 fun5 insightful - 3 fun6 insightful - 4 fun -  (1 child)

Personally I do agree that radical feminists can sometimes be too irrational and extremists against males and making generational against one entire category isn't logical. That being said, I agree with most of their stances and think they're the purest form of feminists.

[–]endless_assfluff 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

About making generalizations against one category: right?! I've been pretty lucky in avoiding the bad eggs of radfem circles. It does seem to me sometimes that people can get defensive about the ideas radfems propose, and rather than recognizing that reaction as getting defensive, they point to the meanest and angriest of us so that they can use it as an excuse to dismiss the whole group offhand. Or interpret what we say in the least charitable way because the movement is already stigmatized. But whatever. Eh.

Thanks for giving me the opportunity to clarify.

[–]whoamiwhowhowhowho 2 insightful - 3 fun2 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 3 fun -  (1 child)

I don't like pushing my credentials online because it's usually not relevant, but to put things in perspective, I'm a mathematician, and am far from the only radical feminist I know who holds a PhD in a relevant area and likes doing the type of measured analysis you're talking about. And it's tiring for me to try and engage with people who don't understand what I'm saying---but think they do, and surprise, surprise, it's always something devoid of nuance & easier to argue with than what I actually said---or who have the impression that radical feminists are angry extremists, so much so that I often have to go months without commenting.

Being a mathematician doesn't give you authority, training, or credibility in this area of discussion beyond the simple ability to evaluate the basic credibility of a journal article ("basic" because a mathematician would lack training in certain areas that are relevant to the social sciences and medicine). Why did you bring it up?

[–]endless_assfluff 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Yeah... I regret it and think it was a mistake to bring it up in this case. My intention here was to try and separate the idea of radical feminism as an evil, man-hating hive mind from individual people who might be able to talk productively with OP who just happen to be radfems. It was meant as an invitation. But it's fair that OP should need some time after a bad experience with radfems, so I'm dropping it.

(The relevant training would be logic, by the way, and having credentials in one field doesn't mean I have no training in social sciences or medicine. Unfortunately, sometimes people get really offended by this because they think me saying that logic is a field of study that you need formal training in means I'm calling them illogical or irrational, when my real intention is to motivate them to develop those skills. So that's another reason not to bring it up.)