The question comes down to: “What do you mean by ‘truth’?” People throw that word around because it seems somehow obvious what “truth” means, but it’s not. That’s why it’s important to go through the process with Descartes in “Discourse” to finally realize that the only reasonably true knowledge is that there exists something to be asking the question. Heidegger is the best reading I’ve found of what the problem really is. Chakrabarty and MacIntyre work through the problems with presuming scientific utilitarianism as being some kind of obvious universal. And Kierkegaard really puts a nail in the coffin of “objective truth”, showing that all truths are subjective, and therefore we all really are solipsists — especially those who aren’t self-aware of their subjective formations, and therefore confuse objective truths for obvious truths. This is why these people made it to my reading list. (Foucoult is there for once you start trying to be careful with language in response to subjective truth, because that turns out to be annoyingly difficult.)

So, you tell me what you mean by ‘truth’ and why that should be the one and only determinant of people’s opinions, behaviors, and actions — why that truth is necessarily reflective of ontological reality. Until we get there, I can’t really advocate for any kind of alternative.

I don’t get why it is that everyone grants science and technology require expertise, but anyone with a prefrontal cortex is equally qualified to throw around their thoughts on philosophy and theology. The thoughts you are having are almost certainly already out there, and thoroughly problemetized.

Here’s the three tweets where I tried to summarize the core argument:
https://twitter.com/#!/RobertFischer/status/139463275220959232
https://twitter.com/#!/RobertFischer/status/139463459531264001
https://twitter.com/#!/RobertFischer/status/139463602540249088

I’m not arguing that everyone needs to buy into a particular alternative. What I *am* arguing is that limiting acceptable knowledge to scientifically accessible knowledge is a fundamental epistemological mistake, and one that is basically demolished as the final exam for Postmodernism 101. So let’s move past that and open the field.

And it is vitally important to open the field, because keeping it closed leads to real issues. For instance, to say that Christianity is falsified because Mosaic authorship of the Penteteuch is falsified (as the original interlocutor did) is just plain wrong. To say that the Bible is a lie (as the original interlocutor did) is just plain wrong. It’s all about the nature of what it means for something to be true. The core presumption of fundamentalist atheists and fundamentalist Christians is that scientific knowledge is the only determinant of truth — which is just wrong, and it leads to nonsense on both sides.

Empiricism can be explained in a comment- damned near in a tweet.  Pile on a stack of books and say “you can’t discuss this subject unless you’ve read all of these”, and bluntly I wonder if you’re trying to pull one over on me.  Hiding the logical flaws under a pile of verbosity.  And don’t bother spending any time discussing the limitation of empiricism, unless discussing how your form of determining truth is better.

Good luck.  You’ll need it.

Are you keeping in mind that my post is a response to another post, which itself is a response to a panel about people’s responses. So there’s an earlier part of the conversation which may inform the content and tone.

It is interesting that I don’t seem able to communicate to you my concerns. Peace.

It is interesting that you disagree with most of my characterizations of your positions. These are obviously difficult issues to articulate and convey nuanced points about.

Regarding your question about how I can agree that men are secondary subjects in Feminism and but disagree that men are alien in Feminism, here are my thoughts.

Feminism is a discipline that has grown, in part, in response to patriarchy. But men have not been alienated or made foreign by Feminism. Recognizing the privilege of men, or the gendered direction of power or violence, in our society is not othering or exclusionary as the term ‘alien’ suggest.

Secondary subjects are still subjects. Aliens, on the other hand, are only objects.

Although I do see feminism as unbalanced, I do not feel that this imbalance has to be rectified. If, however, feminism wants to have a universal scope, or if someone wants to fault men for relating to feminism by way of their female loved ones, then that person should recognize that such relationships by men to feminism are symptomatic of feminism’s imbalance, and so any critique of men relating that way is ultimately a critique of feminism’s imbalance itself.

Feminism can help men understand themselves and therefore be helped (by understanding how women are impacted by societal powers), and whether that’s “enough” is a loaded question I’m not willing to weigh in on.

I do agree that men are objects, not subjects, in feminism, and so if that is sufficient to make them “alien”, then I suppose they are.

I don’t see feminism per se being responsible for “the collapse of sexuality and gender in men”, because that’s a phenomenon I don’t think happened.

if Feminism is genuinely interested in gender, then Feminism is currently imbalanced and this imbalance needs to be rectified

that Feminism does not offer men a deep understanding of themselves

that men are targets or objecs of Feminism, not subjects

that Feminism does not offer men enough

that it is somehow inappropriate for men to be secondary subjects of Feminism

that men are alien in the discipline of Feminism

that the recognition by Feminism that the male gender is priviledged is a problem

that the masculine gender has not really been helped by Feminism

that Feminism is responsible for the collapse of sexuality and gender in men

That pop cultural shows like Modern Family are proof of some fault in Feminism

• that it is somehow inappropriate for men to be secondary subjects of Feminism
• that men are alien in the discipline of Feminism

So, you agree men are “secondary subjects”, but assert they are not “alien”?

My argument is that it’s reasonable for men to relate to feminism primarily through women because feminism relates to men primarily through women. It’s woman-centric. Women are the subject. Any revelation about men in feminism is ultimately ancillary to a revelation about women.

I think it’s very fair of you to ask me to try to articulate what exactly I’m disagreeing with. So I’ve been giving some thought as to how to be clearer.

These are the remarks and assertions of yours that I disagree with:

if Feminism is genuinely interested in gender, then Feminism is currently imbalanced and this imbalance needs to be rectified

that Feminism does not offer men a deep understanding of themselves

that men are targets or objecs of Feminism, not subjects

that Feminism does not offer men enough

that it is somehow inappropriate for men to be secondary subjects of Feminism

that men are alien in the discipline of Feminism

that the recognition by Feminism that the male gender is priviledged is a problem

that the masculine gender has not really been helped by Feminism

that Feminism is responsible for the collapse of sexuality and gender in men

That pop cultural shows like Modern Family are proof of some fault in Feminism

I believe that each of these assertions reveals deep misunderstandings about Feminism that are not ameliorated by your recognition of of the study masculinities. I hope that this outline of what I think is wrong with your article will help you understand some of the content of my previous comment. If not, please let me know.

There is also much about your article that I also agree with:

Feminism is interested in gender

that some Feminists don’t see men as subjects within Feminism

that Feminism is interested in understanding privilege

the work in Feminism is currently predominantly about and by women

that men have higher rates of incarceration than women

that some Feminists are threatened by men who want to participate in discussions about Feminism

I very much appreciate you taking the time to think about this and write about this. Please let me know if you think I’ve mischaracterized any of your claims.

I’m confused by what you actually disagree with. I’m not saying Feminism is bad or unwarranted. I’m not saying Feminism must necessarily be universal or symmetrical — in fact, I think it shouldn’t. But the post I linked to was freaking out because feminism was “about men, too”, and my point is that men are purely secondary subjects in feminism, despite what that post might advocate, and therefore it was totally fair for the men on the panel to relate to feminism primarily through the experiences of the women they have relationships with.

That feminism is rewarding for you is just fine by me — studying feminism has also been rewarding for me, too. But feminism ultimately isn’t about men: it’s about women. I’ve got a Christian friend who finds profound reward in studying Islam: that doesn’t mean Islam has Christians as subjects.

So, aside from a slight at feminism which you’re reading from my post, I’m not sure what you and I actually disagree about.

I think I disagree with your approach here, even setting aside the study of masculinities, as you mention in your afterword.

I disagree because I think Feminism actually is offering, within the academy, a better way for men to understand the way our gender is constructed and shaped and constrained by our culture.

I agree that men have largely failed to take up the close examination of our gender and our relationships and our impacts on our society and each other. But men have also largely failed to understand Feminism. Men have also largely failed to understand that violence is gendered in our culture. The vast majority of violence is still perpetrated by men. But each of these failures can’t be taken as evidence that Feminism isn’t dealing with this.

The fact that the majority of violence is perpetrated by men cannot be overlooked. Men are also the victims of this violence. This is the sense in which ‘privilege’ is not a sufficient concept for understanding gender. An analysis of power and violence must also be applied. Yes, most CEOs are men. But yes, men also disproportionately end up in jail – I don’t know this, I just assume this because you said so.

Am I misunderstanding you? I have not listened to the panel or read the post that sets up the context for your criticism. So my comments might be missing some of your back story.

I have a suspicion that you are applying a test of “theoretical symmetry” to this situation, when symmetry is not called for.

For example, I agree that sexuality and gender are too often collapsed or muddled. I think that this often results in a policing of men’s gender. But I don’t understand how this is related to a deficiency in academic Feminism.

It’s a slow process but I do believe that men are subjects if we allow ourselves to be. But perhaps it is our responsibility to be subjects. It’s our job to be subjects and to do so in ways that do not perpetuate power and privilege. That is to say, it would be very easy for men to get it wrong. It would be very easy for men to think we “get it” but in fact perpetuate gendered power relations. It would be very easy for us to speak out at women’s events and take up too much space. It would be very easy for men to try to lead feminism just like men have tried to lead other social movements. It would be very easy for me, to belive I understand Feminism (I do) and get it dead. flat. wrong.

One example of taking responsibility for this is thinking about gender policing. Like violence, men are also the victims of the way our gender is policed by other men. But we take responsibility for this, by taking up the methods and frameworks of Feminism and resisting this policing of our gender. We can do it in families, at our churches, in our sports team’s locker rooms – everywhere. Feminism can help us do this, no?

Jackson Katz is a bit of a hero of mine and he does a good job exploring this link between gender and violence.

I didn’t mean to write so much. One more note.

Third wave Feminism does not try to be universal in it’s scope. Quite the opposite. Universality is recognized as a dangerous concept. But because of this theoretical humility, it succeeds, I believe, in having wider application. There are second wave Feminists who I greatly admire, for whom I will only ever be an ally. But for many third wave Feminists, I am also a Feminist. I have made peace with this and have no need to be recognized as a Feminist by everyone. Nonetheless, I cautiously and humbly identify as a Feminist or, perhaps, as an aspiring Feminist.

I do so, in part, because I see the value in it for me.

I did not know about these complicating studies when I was a teenager, when taking SSRIs gave me a foothold against severe depression so that cognitive therapy could work. I did know about these complicating studies before I took SSRIs this summer, however. So why did I still do it?

First, because it worked before, and even if it is the placebo effect, it’d probably work again. Working is working, whether it is due to the medicine or to the placebo effect, and I’ll take what works. Unsurprisingly, something that helped in the past is helping in the present.

Second, the two studies which showed that SSRIs are no more effective than placebos are meta-analyses of all antidepressant medications combined. In these meta-analyses, there was a statistically significant but not clinically significant improvement beyond placebo. What is strange about this is that the antidepressants, when individually studied, have clinically significant improvements beyond placebo. Yet when you combine the studies, suddenly their significance seems to plummet. It’s called Simpson’s Paradox, it’s actually shockingly common in statistics, and it’s one of multiple reasons why these kinds of “meta-analyses” need to be considered second-tier evidence. So I’m not too worried about that, and I wish the science journalism would cool their heals about the “downfall of SSRIs”.

Finally, I don’t much care why SSRIs work. The fact is that they do. I am totally unbothered by the fact that we stumbled across a successful, useful medication for depression while pursuing a somewhat dubious hypothesis about the cause of depression. And Hell, even if SSRIs were 100% placebo, it’s still helping my disposition in a way my own efforts weren’t, and for $10/mo, that’s worth it. I won’t be on the SSRIs for a super long time: like when I was a teenager, I just need a foothold to make other lifestyle changes to have a more long-term impact. But in this time when I was so stressed out and losing all interest, the SSRI that I am taking is really helping. And I’m not about to turn that down.