/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.16388499]

Feminism seems to lack epistemological foundations to the point that it has become quite dogmatic, as asks to be taken as true solely on faith or force. What are some books that explores the deficiencies of feminism as a way of thinking?

[Anonymous No.16388504]

>>16388499
Collected Tweets of J. K. Rowling (pbuh)

[Anonymous No.16388515]

you fucking faggot there literally is some “feminist metaphysik” (check wikipedia) or some shit. do you really think those dykes haven’t tried to make their variation of every little crevice?
There probably is some feminist “epistemological foundation” , that doesnt mean it has anything to do with feminists or what they hope to achieve.

[Anonymous No.16388547]

>>16388515
A posteriori justifications mean little if feminism wasn't based on sound reasoning in the first place. Even if those feminist metaphysics (a laughable concept) or epistemology were rigorous, they would have been promoted frequently by your fervent ideologues. As it is, they only try to hide them and persuade by force (an obvious sign of dogma). I suggest you cool your unfounded anger and start examining the weak foundation of your beliefs.

[Anonymous No.16388564]

>>16388499
Feminism is a luxury of first world countries, the second things start getting bad feminists will shut the fuck up
Venezuela had lots of feminist marches and after the economy collapse they all disappeared

[Anonymous No.16388650]

>>16388499
>>16388547
>Feminism lacks epistemological foundations and is a deficient movement! It's dogmatic and is just assumed to be true on faith!
>Me? no, i haven't read any feminist works on the topic. But they're all laughable and lack rigor. Start examining the weak foundations of your beliefs!

[Anonymous No.16388660]

>>16388650
Good post in a shit thread

Remember to sage and report

[Anonymous No.16388668]

>>16388499
Why do terfs think they can promote feminism when they are not real feminists?

[Anonymous No.16388674]

>>16388660
>seething ideologue
>>16388650
I said it *seems* to lack, please do not change my words. I am not dogmatic and open to investigations on both sides. If you believe it does possess the necessary foundations then kindly please recite the arguments here.

[Anonymous No.16388680]

>>16388668
Why do troons think they are the supreme arbiters of what is and isn't feminism?

[Anonymous No.16388725]

>>16388680
"Feminine" refers not just to literal females but to anything that possesses or is imagined to possess stereotypically female qualities. a man can be feminine or strike a feminine pose. various cultures attribute "femininity" to obviously genderless features of the natural world, like the moon or the soil (ancient chinese identified the ground as feminine with a masculine sky above). There are feminine rhymes in poetry. If an abstract linguistic pattern can be feminine, why not a penis?

[Anonymous No.16388833]

Bump. Any books for or against?

[Anonymous No.16388847]

>>16388833

[Anonymous No.16388963]

>>16388499
What epistemological foundations does it lack? It generally holds that women and men should be formally equal, and then there are variations that extend this to informal equality as well. This is normative. What epistemological claims do you mean?

[Anonymous No.16388973]

>>16388833
Well in the case ‘for’ the modern classic is Gender Trouble but the real classic is The Second Sex.

[Anonymous No.16388977]

>>16388963
>women and men should be formally equal
On what basis? This "should" seems to me altogether arbitrary and unjustified. What prevents us (aside dogma) to say they *shouldn't* be equal?

[Anonymous No.16388991]

>>16388973
I will check them out, but in the meantime could you provide some of their strongest and most convincing arguments?