Camille Paglia
I have not read her (she's on the reading list, but I have a long reading list). Other things I've read have not been kind to her, but I'll wait till I actually get to her to make any conclusion.
VorpalBunny74 wrote:it was pointed out she considered herself an equity feminist, you said that's not true feminism in your opinion, invoking nihilism for some reason.
Because it isn't. Her entire ideology of 'equality feminism' exists in a void created by a false dichotomy. She describes all other feminism as "gender feminism" and she refutes gender feminism in its entirety. I.E. She chooses to completely reject feminism, and then pretends to have a viable alternative. But once the professed alternative is examined and broken down, it's basically an empty ideology. It espouses nothing of value, aspires to no goals, and basically only exists to say "gender feminism is bad and should go away." It's a nothing philosophy that exists solely to reject another (hence, it is nihilistic).
She dresses it up and tries to pretend she's just a different kind of feminist, but we can freely examine her position and it becomes abundantly apparent she is not. She can call herself a feminist all she wants, but that just doesn't make any sense. Her entire philosophy is a denial of feminism while propping up a faux-feminism that is as shallow as it is transparent. I.E. Her claim to be a feminist is meaningless. Hence the joke.
How isn't that a No True Scotsman?
Because NTS isn't an argument that no one can ever be excluded from a label. It is a fallacy of being arbitrary ("determined by chance, whim, or impulse, and not by necessity, reason, or principle"). My argument against her is not "no feminist would ever criticize feminism" but that "someone who rejects feminism in its entirety can't reasonably be called a feminist."
So calling her 'not a feminist' and trying to change the definition for what IS a feminist are pretty much why I think your reasoning is invalid. You don't agree with her, but that doesn't mean she isn't a feminist.
The irony being lost on you is that the dichotomy of "equality feminism and gender feminism" is one wholly of Sommers' making and it is a dichotomy of Sommers on one side and all modern Feminism on the other. It is in fact, Sommers, who wants to change the definition of what is a feminist, not Hybrid or I. EDIT: And honestly I don't have an issue with that per se. I think Feminism needs to change desperately because if Sommers is right about anything, it's that modern Feminism is too caught up in it's own academic gymnastics to be valuable. It is
imo too distant from practicality to be of use as anything more than an academic device. My issue with Sommers however is that she offers no reasoned or cohesive alternative to "gender feminism" and gives no idea of what or how it should change to be relevant. She just wants to throw everything out the window and leave the loft unfurnished.
The result of anti-GG was the dreaded Law and Order episode
Seriously, why are people so butt hurt over that? It really wasn't a good episode, even by the admittedly low standards of L&O (it's okay L&O I still love you. Your mediocrity is part of your charm).
.
.
?