Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

PSA: After a short intermission about definitions, we are currently discussing gender quotas.

Coming from a 40k General Discussion thread about Feminist 40k, this is a discussion on "3rd wave" or "Tumblr" Feminism, SJW 's, Sargon of Akkad, and their mirrors on opposing sides of political spectra.

Topic battlegrounds are involving the impact on hobbies and entertainment, such as Marvel, Warhammer-verses, and WotC, and on the wider political movements in general.

Original post:

 Selym wrote:
After a disastrous game last summer, I've been keeping my head out of 40k to concentrate on being at uni, so, as one might imagine, I have no idea where we're at with 40k. 8E's out, Guilliman is back to Mary Sue menace the foes of mankind, giga-marines are stomping around, Ynnead is here to [presumably kill] everything... But the thing I'm interested in today is the encroachment of "3rd wave" or "Tumblr" Feminism into 40k. In my personal opinion, this is a nihilistic postmodernist and neo-marxist ideology that, in regards to games and other media, is trying to push "diversity" as the only thing that matters. What drags me into this discussion is the Facebook page, Feminist 40k, which is critiqued by Sargon of Akkad on YouTube (here and here). For the uninitiated, this is going to be a long one.

What are your views in regards to this encroachment? Is it welcome, is it morally just, does it make sense to you, do you agree with the principles of 3rd wave feminism?

And, being that I have lost track of 40k since the release of 8E, is GW paying this sort of stuff any heed (in the way that Marvel and WotC have)?

Supplementary post:

 Selym wrote:

 Galas wrote:


And to be honest I don't think nihilistic means what you think it means

Nihilistic in the sense that it holds to the idea that there is no meaning, and nothing to aspire to (thus justifying the victim complex that typically shows up amongst 3rd wave feminists), and post-modernist in that it holds to the claims of post-modernist theory in sociology that since, a) different people hold different views over the same data, b) some of these views are irreconcilable, and c) some sets of irreconcilable views cannot be proven/disproven one way or another, that there is no objective reality and that, therefore, only one's subjective reality matters. Thus, if one person claims to be systemically oppressed by something, or is feeling offended by an off-hand remark that was not aimed at them, those are always legitimate claims.

A real-world example of this is when feminists argue that when a man is claimed to have raped a woman, that he does not deserve the methods of due process, and that asking for evidence in favour of the accusation are examples of disbelief and oppression of women.

For me, this is easy. Identity politics is toxic, divisive, and its only point is to proselytize people along tribal boundaries. It's a cult-like ideology. It doesn't matter what superficial identity group is being promoted, the end result is inherently illiberal, and it's an "end justifies the means" ideology which justifies violating individual rights and democratic processes in the name of some utopian greater good.

Like I said in the other thread, it's an easy litmus test for me. Anyone who wants to have open debate and a free market of ideas is at least doing some kind of due diligence in the name of intellectual and ethical integrity, and anyone who is against those things can only be so because they know their ideas can't compete.

I haven't watched any Sargon videos for a long time, except for the one where he debates Richard Spencer. I have also never really heard what Spencer really believes before that debate. What Spencer believes is absolutely ludicrous - he basically thinks we should revert to feudalism because of some half-articulated and romantic notions about whiteness as a spiritual state of being. It doesn't make any sense. More than that, he doesn't believe in democracy, freedom of speech, or the restriction of the powers of the state for the protection of individual liberty. Sound familiar? He's a total collectivist. The danger of identity politics is that, whether the intentions are something you can get behind or not; whether you get a Richard Spencer or a progressive SJW, you get the same thing in the end, just in different colors. I say reject it all.

 Selym wrote:
neo-marxist ideology

What does that even mean in this context? What does any of this have to do with the economic system, collective ownership of capital, class revolution, etc? Is there actually some kind of Marxist element, or is this another case of the right attaching "Marxist" to everything because it sounds scary?

in regards to games and other media, is trying to push "diversity" as the only thing that matters.

Nobody is doing that. Some people certainly choose to focus on diversity and don't bother, say, pushing for more space marine models because that advocacy is already covered well and they have a limited amount of effort to spend. But I don't think you can find anyone who believes that diversity is the only thing that matters.

What drags me into this discussion is the Facebook page, Feminist 40k, which is critiqued by Sargon of Akkad on YouTube (here and here). For the uninitiated, this is going to be a long one.

Can you provide a written summary (IOW, not a youtube video of some random guy talking at the camera) of this debate? It's kind of ridiculous to drag in a debate where neither side is involved with dakka and expect people to slog through various unrelated sites just to figure out what is going on. What exactly about this facebook page is so objectionable, and why do you feel that it is a subject that needs to be discussed here?

What are your views in regards to this encroachment?

What encroachment? What exactly is being encroached upon?

Is it welcome, is it morally just, does it make sense to you, do you agree with the principles of 3rd wave feminism?

If the subject is increasing diversity in 40k then it is welcome, it is morally just, and it makes sense. As for third-wave feminism, I mostly agree. It's a poorly defined concept with no single universally agreed-upon list of principles, so it's hard to say for sure, but in broad terms yes.

And, being that I have lost track of 40k since the release of 8E, is GW paying this sort of stuff any heed (in the way that Marvel and WotC have)?

Not as far as I can see. GW doesn't seem to be developing the setting in any way beyond "MOAR SPACE MARINE KITS", so it's hard to say whether this lack of action is a conscious rejection of calls for diversity or simply GW being too incompetent to do anything but milk the cash cow of fluff written 20-30 years ago.

Nihilistic in the sense that it holds to the idea that there is no meaning, and nothing to aspire to (thus justifying the victim complex that typically shows up amongst 3rd wave feminists), and post-modernist in that it holds to the claims of post-modernist theory in sociology that since, a) different people hold different views over the same data, b) some of these views are irreconcilable, and c) some sets of irreconcilable views cannot be proven/disproven one way or another, that there is no objective reality and that, therefore, only one's subjective reality matters. Thus, if one person claims to be systemically oppressed by something, or is feeling offended by an off-hand remark that was not aimed at them, those are always legitimate claims.

What exactly does this have to do with any of the previous discussion? As far as I can see nothing involving diversity has anything to do with concepts like "there is no meaning" or "there is no objective reality". Nor do I see any connection between genuine nihilism and pointing out the fact that intent is not magic, and not intending to offend someone with a remark doesn't erase the harm it caused. Is there actually any relevant group of people attempting to apply nihilistic principles to 40k in a harmful way, or is attaching "NIHILIST POSTMODERNISM" just another silly right-wing label?

A real-world example of this is when feminists argue that when a man is claimed to have raped a woman, that he does not deserve the methods of due process, and that asking for evidence in favour of the accusation are examples of disbelief and oppression of women.

You're omitting a key detail about this argument: that it is applied to social interactions, not criminal law. Due process, requiring evidence, etc, are still required in court to convict someone of rape and nobody (well, nobody but fringe lunatics) is arguing otherwise. The problem that is being pointed out here is situations where a woman makes an accusation and people immediately become the most determined skeptics ever, insisting on absolute proof before they will believe that the accusation is credible. Meanwhile no such standard is applied to the man, it's just assumed that he is telling the truth and should continue to be trusted. The two are very often not treated with equal levels of skepticism, and that's a problem.

40k is intended to be a dystopia, so anything "bad" is more or less in place. racism means now other than human, sexism is not a thing as a body is a body to feed the grinder of the guard. noone is meant to be "happy" in 40k its just a miserable place to live (briefly)

Peregrine, I can answer some of those questions for you, although it might be better fit for the other thread since you're mainly asking about how the topic applies to 40k.

Neo-Marxism is something a lot of people apply to certain strains of progressive politics such as contemporary Feminism. I will be honest, this is a label that is used extensively by personalities which are currently dear to the right or center-right. However, it has a pretty solid historical basis. The gist of the idea is that, particularly in the academy, areas of study such as Feminism are heavily influenced by self-proclaimed Neo-Marxist thinkers such as Horkheimer, Habermas and Adorno of the Frankfurt School:

e Frankfurt School (German: Frankfurter Schule) is a school of social theory and philosophy associated in part with the Institute for Social Research at the Goethe University Frankfurt. Founded during the interwar period, the School consisted of neo-Marxist dissidents who felt at home in none of the existent capitalist, fascist, or communist systems of the time. Many of these theorists believed that traditional theory could not adequately explain the turbulent and unexpected development of capitalist societies in the twentieth century. Critical of both capitalism and Soviet socialism, their writings pointed to the possibility of an alternative path to social development.

They developed the Marxist Dialectic into something which could be applied to areas of society and culture other than mere economics and class. The result was Critical Theory, which has been a major part of many liberal arts curricula to this day:

The Frankfurt School's work cannot be addressed without understanding the objectives of critical theory. Initially outlined by Max Horkheimer in his Traditional and Critical Theory (1937), critical theory may be defined as a self-conscious social critique that is aimed at change and emancipation through enlightenment and that does not cling dogmatically to its own doctrinal assumptions.[16][17] The original aim of critical theory was to analyze the true significance of "the ruling understandings" generated in bourgeois society, in order to show how they misrepresented actual human interaction in the real world, and in so doing functioned to justify or legitimize the domination of people by capitalism. A certain sort of story (a narrative) was provided to explain what was happening in society, but the story concealed as much as it revealed. The Frankfurt theorists generally assumed that their task was mainly to interpret the areas of society Marx had not dealt with, especially in the superstructure of society.[18]

Horkheimer opposed it to traditional theory, which refers to theory in the positivistic, scientistic, or purely observational mode—that is, which derives generalizations or "laws" about different aspects of the world. Drawing upon Max Weber, Horkheimer argued that the social sciences differ from the natural sciences inasmuch as generalizations cannot be easily made from so-called experiences because the understanding of a "social" experience itself is always fashioned by ideas that are in the researchers themselves. What the researcher does not realize is that s/he is caught in a historical context in which ideologies shape the thinking; thus, theory would conform to the ideas in the mind of the researcher rather than to the experience itself.

Critical Theory is quite literally a form of postmodern critique of the whole of society, derived in part from Marxism. It is also the foundation of many modern political movements in an intellectual sense. This isn't just a buzzword or a conspiracy theory, you can easily trace the genealogy of movements like contemporary Feminism back to Critical Theory and Critical Pedagogy. Note that this is not true for first or second-wave Feminism.

Since the development of more complex conceptions of gender and subjectivity and third-wave feminism, feminist literary criticism has taken a variety of new routes, namely in the tradition of the Frankfurt School's critical theory, which analyzes how the dominant ideology of a subject influences societal understanding. It has also considered gender in the terms of Freudian and Lacanian psychoanalysis, as part of the deconstruction of existing relations of power, and as a concrete political investment.[9] The more traditionally central feminist concern with the representation and politics of women's lives has continued to play an active role in criticism. More specifically, modern feminist criticism deals with those issues related to the perceived intentional and unintentional patriarchal programming within key aspects of society including education, politics and the work force.

Thus, postmodern and Neo-Marxist. There's really no point in even denying or arguing those two labels except to be disingenuous; all I have to do to prove them, at least for Feminism in the academic or intellectual sense, is check a few bibliographies. Modern Feminism is a postmodern, Neo-Marxist criticism of Capitalism, through the lens of gender relations instead of class relations.

As to how this relates to 40k, recently a private Facebook group called Feminist40k has been popping up on hobby-related blogs and news sites, which I will admit you are a person of better taste than I am for not reading. So, you might say that this is much ado about nothing and that no one really cares except for clickbait, which may well be true.

Anyway, they wrote an open letter to GW and the 40k community, demanding that 40k be brought more into line with their ideology based on the supposition that 40k fans are inherently misogynistic, and that there is a massive problem with sexual harassment and discrimination in the hobby which can be solved by better gender representation in the models up to and including female Space Marines. That is a summary of their argument. The problem is that they don't provide any proof or even anecdotes about patterns of misogynistic behavior from the 40k community or game stores, and in fact a vast majority of their members are straight white males who claim to be speaking for the supposedly neglected female demographic as a whole.

I have been following this since it started, and I have never seen a single person who does not agree that more female representation in the model lines would be a good thing. That is a complete non-issue which no one is arguing. The problem that a lot of people have is that Feminist40k appears to be intellectually dishonest, and the idea that they are trying to shove a wedge into 40k as an injection point for their specific political ideology at the potential expense of pretty much anything.

This is going to be a long post for what could be a long thread.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Selym wrote:
neo-marxist ideology

What does that even mean in this context? What does any of this have to do with the economic system, collective ownership of capital, class revolution, etc? Is there actually some kind of Marxist element, or is this another case of the right attaching "Marxist" to everything because it sounds scary? Marxism started off with Marx and developed into various forms of communist ideologies. Along the way, the general movement of revolutionary societal change came to dredge up people who saw the world only in terms of power, and those who would rig that movement to benefit them at the expense of others. It came to be more about having one identified class lording it over all people of an identified other class than just being about a redistribution of wealth. Marxism was largely discredited among intellectual circles following the publication of such damning works as "The Gulag Archipelago" (which I admit I have not yet read), but somehow held on as the principles of classist division amongst humans. The label Neo-Marxist denotes the functional similarity between Tumblr Feminism and the old Marxism, in that the world is being simplified down to a two-sided war. In the case of Tumblr Feminism, it is the struggle of the male-dominated patriarchy to keep down and oppress women, and the likewise push from women to combat the patriarchy. Wherever women and ideologically-associated minorities can find hardship in their lives, they can blame it on the social structure of patriarchy - from social engineering to force girls to buy pink toys, to the gender pay gap as it used to be (women being valued less at work), to the pay gap as it is now (a difference of statistical averages). Tumblr Feminism maintains some of its old Marxist roots by correlating itself with a general anti-capitalist sentiment, and the SJW-labelled disbelief that hard work can bring about success. It is in these ways that Tumblr Feminism is Neo-Marxist.

in regards to games and other media, is trying to push "diversity" as the only thing that matters.

Nobody is doing that. Some people certainly choose to focus on diversity and don't bother, say, pushing for more space marine models because that advocacy is already covered well and they have a limited amount of effort to spend. But I don't think you can find anyone who believes that diversity is the only thing that matters.

What drags me into this discussion is the Facebook page, Feminist 40k, which is critiqued by Sargon of Akkad on YouTube (here and here). For the uninitiated, this is going to be a long one.

Can you provide a written summary (IOW, not a youtube video of some random guy talking at the camera) of this debate? It's kind of ridiculous to drag in a debate where neither side is involved with dakka and expect people to slog through various unrelated sites just to figure out what is going on. What exactly about this facebook page is so objectionable, and why do you feel that it is a subject that needs to be discussed here? For me it, the hook is in how a preexisting and somewhat widespread, if numerically small, movement is branching out into new areas to push its agenda. Really, I would have done this for any other example if it had interested me. Being interested in 40k as a personal hobby, this brush with that particular ideology had me wanting to get an update on the state-of-play in 40k, and to see if anyone else keeping track of the movement had anything to say on the matter. The two sides largely involved are "anyone familiar with the various incarnations of Feminism and associated social change movements" and "people with an interest in 40k". It's not so much a debate as just a crossing of interests. The links, while they may be informative to some, are just reference points for those interested.

What are your views in regards to this encroachment?

What encroachment? What exactly is being encroached upon? The branching out of a preexisting ideology, taking its first steps into a new field. Tumblr Feminism has successfully entered University and Government policies in such a way, with varying degrees of objectionability (or lack thereof), pushing at its lowest levels a support for equal rights and fair treatment and consideration, and in some cases moving to enforce PC culture and other restrictions of speech or expression. It is fun for me to watch as it tries to feel up the 40kverse, a thing that parodies the final end of Marxist-based systems, and expresses some of the greatest and weirdest parts of freedom of speech and expression.

Is it welcome, is it morally just, does it make sense to you, do you agree with the principles of 3rd wave feminism?

If the subject is increasing diversity in 40k then it is welcome, it is morally just, and it makes sense. As for third-wave feminism, I mostly agree. It's a poorly defined concept with no single universally agreed-upon list of principles, so it's hard to say for sure, but in broad terms yes. A fair consideration. I should really start making lists of various forms of Feminist thought, and their interactions with the world.

And, being that I have lost track of 40k since the release of 8E, is GW paying this sort of stuff any heed (in the way that Marvel and WotC have)?

Not as far as I can see. GW doesn't seem to be developing the setting in any way beyond "MOAR SPACE MARINE KITS", so it's hard to say whether this lack of action is a conscious rejection of calls for diversity or simply GW being too incompetent to do anything but milk the cash cow of fluff written 20-30 years ago.

Nihilistic in the sense that it holds to the idea that there is no meaning, and nothing to aspire to (thus justifying the victim complex that typically shows up amongst 3rd wave feminists), and post-modernist in that it holds to the claims of post-modernist theory in sociology that since, a) different people hold different views over the same data, b) some of these views are irreconcilable, and c) some sets of irreconcilable views cannot be proven/disproven one way or another, that there is no objective reality and that, therefore, only one's subjective reality matters. Thus, if one person claims to be systemically oppressed by something, or is feeling offended by an off-hand remark that was not aimed at them, those are always legitimate claims.

What exactly does this have to do with any of the previous discussion? As far as I can see nothing involving diversity has anything to do with concepts like "there is no meaning" or "there is no objective reality". Nor do I see any connection between genuine nihilism and pointing out the fact that intent is not magic, and not intending to offend someone with a remark doesn't erase the harm it caused. Is there actually any relevant group of people attempting to apply nihilistic principles to 40k in a harmful way, or is attaching "NIHILIST POSTMODERNISM" just another silly right-wing label? It is relating to the backing in academia, not just pushing for diversity. Had it been on diversity alone, I really wouldn't care. I like the idea of female guardsmen, I think that women are good in general, and I see no reason to take a group of people as less than another. But the thing I want to get at is not just individual threeads of progressivism, it is a forming political ideology, with figures like Anita Sarkeesian taking the stage.

A real-world example of this is when feminists argue that when a man is claimed to have raped a woman, that he does not deserve the methods of due process, and that asking for evidence in favour of the accusation are examples of disbelief and oppression of women.

You're omitting a key detail about this argument: that it is applied to social interactions, not criminal law. Due process, requiring evidence, etc, are still required in court to convict someone of rape and nobody (well, nobody but fringe lunatics) is arguing otherwise. The problem that is being pointed out here is situations where a woman makes an accusation and people immediately become the most determined skeptics ever, insisting on absolute proof before they will believe that the accusation is credible. Meanwhile no such standard is applied to the man, it's just assumed that he is telling the truth and should continue to be trusted. The two are very often not treated with equal levels of skepticism, and that's a problem.

 Selym wrote:
Marxism started off with Marx and developed into various forms of communist ideologies. Along the way, the general movement of revolutionary societal change came to dredge up people who saw the world only in terms of power, and those who would rig that movement to benefit them at the expense of others. It came to be more about having one identified class lording it over all people of an identified other class than just being about a redistribution of wealth. Marxism was largely discredited among intellectual circles following the publication of such damning works as "The Gulag Archipelago" (which I admit I have not yet read), but somehow held on as the principles of classist division amongst humans. The label Neo-Marxist denotes the functional similarity between Tumblr Feminism and the old Marxism, in that the world is being simplified down to a two-sided war. In the case of Tumblr Feminism, it is the struggle of the male-dominated patriarchy to keep down and oppress women, and the likewise push from women to combat the patriarchy. Wherever women and ideologically-associated minorities can find hardship in their lives, they can blame it on the social structure of patriarchy - from social engineering to force girls to buy pink toys, to the gender pay gap as it used to be (women being valued less at work), to the pay gap as it is now (a difference of statistical averages). Tumblr Feminism maintains some of its old Marxist roots by correlating itself with a general anti-capitalist sentiment, and the SJW-labelled disbelief that hard work can bring about success. It is in these ways that Tumblr Feminism is Neo-Marxist.

That doesn't make any sense. It's way too broad of an interpretation of the concept of "Marxism", applying to pretty much any situation where there is a strong side and a weak side and the weak side wants to become strong. But you are confirming what I suspected: that the term "Marxism" has little relevance here, and is only applied out of a desire to call leftist things "Marxism" as a way to attack them.

A fair consideration. I should really start making lists of various forms of Feminist thought, and their interactions with the world.

Perhaps this is something you should do before you start a thread on such a hopelessly broad topic.

 Peregrine wrote:

That doesn't make any sense. It's way too broad of an interpretation of the concept of "Marxism", applying to pretty much any situation where there is a strong side and a weak side and the weak side wants to become strong. But you are confirming what I suspected: that the term "Marxism" has little relevance here, and is only applied out of a desire to call leftist things "Marxism" as a way to attack them.

If I was using "Marxist" without the "Neo-" attached to it, you would be right. The fact is, however, that the viewing of society as a two-class conflict system is inherently relevant to this discussion.

 Peregrine wrote:


That doesn't make any sense. It's way too broad of an interpretation of the concept of "Marxism", applying to pretty much any situation where there is a strong side and a weak side and the weak side wants to become strong. But you are confirming what I suspected: that the term "Marxism" has little relevance here, and is only applied out of a desire to call leftist things "Marxism" as a way to attack them.

Whoa there. I'm not going to let you get off that easily. Do you have any response to the way I traced modern Feminism to Neo-Marxism?

 Selym wrote:
If I was using "Marxist" without the "Neo-" attached to it, you would be right. The fact is, however, that the viewing of society as a two-class conflict system is inherently relevant to this discussion.

Except "two-class conflict system" is exactly the opposite of most modern feminist theories. A major part of modern feminism is attempting to go beyond the simple "men in power, women oppressed" model and consider other conflicts: race, economic status, etc. For example, considering the fact that a white woman may be in a disadvantaged position on the gender scale, but in the privileged position when race is relevant. Trying to reduce that to a two-class conflict is demonstrating a serious lack of understanding of what people are actually arguing.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Selym wrote:
If I was using "Marxist" without the "Neo-" attached to it, you would be right. The fact is, however, that the viewing of society as a two-class conflict system is inherently relevant to this discussion.

Except "two-class conflict system" is exactly the opposite of most modern feminist theories. A major part of modern feminism is attempting to go beyond the simple "men in power, women oppressed" model and consider other conflicts: race, economic status, etc. For example, considering the fact that a white woman may be in a disadvantaged position on the gender scale, but in the privileged position when race is relevant. Trying to reduce that to a two-class conflict is demonstrating a serious lack of understanding of what people are actually arguing.

Talk about lack of understanding, there's a reason I specify 3rd wave and Tumblr feminism. It gains way more traction than it deserves.

 Luciferian wrote:
Whoa there. I'm not going to let you get off that easily. Do you have any response to the way I traced modern Feminism to Neo-Marxism?

My response is simple: it's a very weak argument that relies on very broad statements ("understanding is biased by the author", etc) and superficial similarities with some theoretical elements used in justifying Marxism rather than the core economic concepts of Marxism. It's a very broad definition of "Marxism" that could apply to most of modern academic work in the social sciences, so broad that it becomes a useless term.

Peregrine is talking about Intersectional Feminism, which is still Neo-Marxist and postmodern.

 Selym wrote:
Talk about lack of understanding, there's a reason I specify 3rd wave and Tumblr feminism. It gains way more traction than it deserves.

...

You do understand that a major part of what is generally considered "third-wave feminism" is concepts like intersectionality and a direct attack on the idea that there is a single-axis conflict between two classes, right? I have no idea how you can make the argument that third-wave feminism is about viewing society as a two-class conflict system, other than having a very poor understanding of what feminists are actually saying. It's like objecting to the theory of relativity in physics because you don't like the idea that the speed of light in a vacuum changes instead of being a universal constant.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Luciferian wrote:
Whoa there. I'm not going to let you get off that easily. Do you have any response to the way I traced modern Feminism to Neo-Marxism?

My response is simple: it's a very weak argument that relies on very broad statements ("understanding is biased by the author", etc) and superficial similarities with some theoretical elements used in justifying Marxism rather than the core economic concepts of Marxism. It's a very broad definition of "Marxism" that could apply to most of modern academic work in the social sciences, so broad that it becomes a useless term.

Funny that you mention the rest of the social sciences and their relation to Marxism, because this school of thought is almost completely dominant in the social sciences.

NEO-Marxism based on the efforts of academics from the Frankfurt school til this day has intentionally divorced itself from the purely economic and class-based theories and arguments of traditional Marxism. This isn't a tenuous connection, it isn't even an argument. It's what the academic literature says in its own words.

 Luciferian wrote:
Funny that you mention the rest of the social sciences and their relation to Marxism, because this school of thought is almost completely dominant in the social sciences.

So what you're essentially saying is that the entire field is "Marxism". You've reduced the term to a meaningless statement because there is no division between "Marxist" and "not Marxist". Every statement in the social sciences, regardless of position, is "Marxism". And when everything is "Marxism" calling feminists "neo-Marxists" is about as informative as calling them "humans". It may be a true statement, but it doesn't tell us anything we didn't already know. So at that point the only reason for using the "Marxist" label for feminists in particular is a desire to call on the reflexive OMG SOCIALISM AND TREASON outrage from the right.

Yeah, no. The label is appropriate from the originating literature, and is appropriate in describing the parts of Feminism to which we are referring.
This would be funny if it wasn't also people on the left like myself having to go after current feminist movements.

EDIT: Autocorrect hates me

 Selym wrote:
Yeah, no. The label is appropriate from the originating literature, and is appropriate in describing the parts of Feminism to which we are referring.

It's only "appropriate" in the same way that it's appropriate to apply the label to literally any statement or theory in the social sciences. The only definition for "Marxism" that allows it to fit feminism is one so hopelessly broad that using it tells us nothing.

Either you are conflating all feminist movements, or you really have no idea what you are talking about.

I think it's quite informative, seeing that it's no less anti-Capitalist or collectivist, and it uses as the very foundation of its ideology the same dialectic. It's just now applied across all of society and culture to every kind of conflict from racial conflict to gender relations, as opposed to merely economics. It's also inherently political, biased and insular because it's based on the supposition that anything to the right of it (which includes centrism and several forms of liberalism) is an ossified social construct of oppression.

 Selym wrote:
Either you are conflating all feminist movements, or you really have no idea what you are talking about.

No, you are the one who seems to be confused and conflating various feminist movements. You're the one who posted the claim that third-wave feminism is about a Marxist two-class conflict, completely missing the fact that a core part of third-wave feminism is saying "previous waves were wrong about feminism being a two-class conflict, it's a complicated system of many classes and conflicts happening simultaneously".


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Luciferian wrote:
I think it's quite informative, seeing that it's no less anti-Capitalist or collectivist, and it uses as the very foundation of its ideology the same dialectic. It's just now applied across all of society and culture to every kind of conflict from racial conflict to gender relations, as opposed to merely economics.

Uh, what? No. Modern feminism is often critical of capitalism, yes, but so are quite a range of other ideologies across the entire political spectrum. But I am extremely skeptical of the claim that modern feminism has anywhere near a majority in favor of Marxist dismantling of the entire economic and industrial systems in favor of collective ownership of capital. The vast majority of feminists (most of them the "third wave" types you're objecting to) I've ever interacted with tend to have some form of center-left economic positions, arguing for policies to mitigate the abuses and inequality of capitalism (things which are pretty indisputably true) without destroying the entire system. You know, like the mainstream left in a lot of European countries.

It's also inherently political, biased and insular because it's based on the supposition that anything to the right of it (which includes centrism and several forms of liberalism) is an ossified social construct of oppression.

That would be an impressive feat given the fact that "third-wave feminism" covers a range of positions on the left-right scale. Not that the left-right scale is a very accurate way of modeling political beliefs in the first place, but I'll try to use your very crude approximation.

I was talking about the Neo-Marxism of social sciences curricula in general there, not just feminism. Also, I am not talking about what anyone who might identify as Feminist believes, I'm talking about the intellectual and academic foundations of Feminist theory. I have no doubt that there are many people who consider themselves Feminists in a classically liberal sense of egalitarianism and equal protection under the law, which I happen to agree with.

 Luciferian wrote:
I was talking about the Neo-Marxism of social sciences curricula in general there, not just feminism.

Then it's even more absurd to make the claim. You're talking about literally the entire social sciences field, covering an incredibly broad range of ideological positions and theories. I have no idea how you can possibly generalize the entire field as anti-capitalist and collectivist.

Also, I am not talking about what anyone who might identify as Feminist believes, I'm talking about the intellectual and academic foundations of Feminist theory. I have no doubt that there are many people who consider themselves Feminists in a classically liberal sense of egalitarianism and equal protection under the law, which I happen to agree with.

I can see where you're going with this, drawing the bizarre line between "egalitarian feminism" where everything is settled once the law says everyone is equal regardless of how effective the laws actually are, and those pesky SJW Marxists who want to see actual change before declaring victory. But it still doesn't work, the supposed "Marxist" foundations you're talking about are not relevant to what the average "third-wave" feminists believe. In practical terms it's an academic debate between marginally-relevant theorists with little impact outside of academic papers.

Alright, it seems we have a conflict of definitions. For the sake of progress, let's tackle a feminist issue, voice opinions and then try to define sides.

A generally feminist proposal for handling disproportionate representation of genders in business has been to institute gender quotas. These quotas would require a business, by optional policy, to hire a minimum percentage of all new staff as female. Discuss the positives and negatives, and discuss whether you support such measures, and why.

 Selym wrote:
A generally feminist proposal for handling disproportionate representation of genders in business has been to institute gender quotas. These quotas would require a business, by optional policy, to hire a minimum percentage of all new staff as female. Discuss the positives and negatives, and discuss whether you support such measures, and why.

Support, as a least-bad option. We know from experience that laws banning discrimination based on gender are not effective and discrimination still happens. For example, submitting exactly identical applications under both male and female names gets a higher rate of interest and interview offers for the male names (the same is also true of race). And we know that there are qualified women available to fill those jobs, so the under-representation is not a case of wanting to be fair but not having any candidates to hire. Finally, we know that proving discrimination in the absence of any kind of quota is virtually impossible unless someone in the company is stupid enough to say "we aren't hiring you because you're a woman" on record, making enforcement of the pre-quota laws extremely difficult. So there are two options:

1) Declare that victory has already been won, the law says discrimination is illegal, and that's all that can be done. Disregard any questions about the effectiveness of the laws, legal equality has been achieved.

or

2) Concede that the first attempt has been ineffective and the industry has shown itself to be unworthy of being trusted to handle hiring decisions in a fair and legal manner, and impose a quota that is still likely well below what we would see in a truly fair and unbiased system. Make the assumption that cases of genuine difficulty in hiring qualified women are rare outliers, and the overwhelming majority of cases of failing to fill the quota are the result of illegal discrimination.

The second option is the less-bad of the two, and no viable third alternative has been proposed.

 Peregrine wrote:


I can see where you're going with this, drawing the bizarre line between "egalitarian feminism" where everything is settled once the law says everyone is equal regardless of how effective the laws actually are, and those pesky SJW Marxists who want to see actual change before declaring victory. But it still doesn't work, the supposed "Marxist" foundations you're talking about are not relevant to what the average "third-wave" feminists believe. In practical terms it's an academic debate between marginally-relevant theorists with little impact outside of academic papers.

You're clearly wrong there. It has had immense cultural impact, and informed massive political movements spanning the globe. Again, I can't account for what everyone who calls themselves a Feminist will tell you what they think Feminism is. But the fact remains that various types of Neo-Marxist thought, including that found in Feminist Theory, have had lasting cultural, academic and even legislative impact on the whole of Western society; affecting issues from freedom of speech to university administration to municipal snowplowing in Sweden.

 Luciferian wrote:
. But the fact remains that various types of Neo-Marxist thought, including that found in Feminist Theory, have had lasting cultural, academic and even legislative impact on the whole of Western society; affecting issues from freedom of speech to university administration to municipal snowplowing in Sweden.

Having sat down and read this entire debate about the application of the usage of the phrase 'Neo-Marxist' in this context, I have to largely agree with Peregrine. Whilst I'm not going to go so far as to try and theorise about the motivations beyond the utilisation of the term; he's hit the nail on the head in that Marx really has zip to do with the discussion itself. Claiming that the mode of thinking pioneered by him has evolved to encapsulate modern feminism and thus its application here justifies the phrase 'Neo-Marxism' is daft.

No, I mean seriously, that's daft. That's like applying the term 'Neo-Smithian' before anything to do both with economic theory or 'Neo-Hesodian' about anyone who takes a didactic method of philosophy. Marx himself ends up being 'Neo' three hundred different terms as he was derivative of various intellectual contemporaries and ancestors in many ways. If you want to use the 'Neo' anything and have it mean something, your argument really needs to either be highly specifically derivative of whatever comes after the word, or very specifically related and focused upon the actual mode of critique.

Simply tagging it onto the end of a philosophical/logical/whatever theory on the basis that the method of analysis/style of thought is partially derived from one theory somewhere along the way is simply obfuscating and meaningless. If I was reviewing a journal article that tried to pull that one, I'd throw it straight in the bin for bad writing.

As you've said yourself, you might be able to find strands of thought influenced by Marxism in municipal snowploughing, but nobody sits down and titles the 'Neo-Marxist, Neo-Hegelist, Neo-Liberalist, Neo-Keynesian etcetcetcetc Theory of Municipal Snowploughing'. You'd fill ten pages with the word 'Neo' trying to describe every intellectual ancestor before you completed the first sentence.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Selym wrote:
A generally feminist proposal for handling disproportionate representation of genders in business has been to institute gender quotas. These quotas would require a business, by optional policy, to hire a minimum percentage of all new staff as female. Discuss the positives and negatives, and discuss whether you support such measures, and why.

Support, as a least-bad option. We know from experience that laws banning discrimination based on gender are not effective and discrimination still happens. For example, submitting exactly identical applications under both male and female names gets a higher rate of interest and interview offers for the male names (the same is also true of race). And we know that there are qualified women available to fill those jobs, so the under-representation is not a case of wanting to be fair but not having any candidates to hire. Finally, we know that proving discrimination in the absence of any kind of quota is virtually impossible unless someone in the company is stupid enough to say "we aren't hiring you because you're a woman" on record, making enforcement of the pre-quota laws extremely difficult. So there are two options:

1) Declare that victory has already been won, the law says discrimination is illegal, and that's all that can be done. Disregard any questions about the effectiveness of the laws, legal equality has been achieved.

or

2) Concede that the first attempt has been ineffective and the industry has shown itself to be unworthy of being trusted to handle hiring decisions in a fair and legal manner, and impose a quota that is still likely well below what we would see in a truly fair and unbiased system. Make the assumption that cases of genuine difficulty in hiring qualified women are rare outliers, and the overwhelming majority of cases of failing to fill the quota are the result of illegal discrimination.

The second option is the less-bad of the two, and no viable third alternative has been proposed.

I oppose gender quotas. While I don't view having more women around as a particularly bad thing, and while I agree that there are difficulties with proving or eradicating discrimination, there are other things to consider.

The technology and science industries have been pushing for more female staff for quite a while now, with some even taking on gender quotas, but even the most ardent recruiters of female candidates are saying that women are just in radically short supply. Increasing female representation has been painfully slow, and in some areas looks to be almost plateaued. In Scandinavian countries, this push for equality and even equity has had a sweeping uptake, but with the result that more women moved towards typically-female roles and more men moved towards typically-male roles (such as Nurses vs Soldiers). This is really only showing the inadequacy of gender quotas to tackle the perceived issue.

Another fun fact about gender quotas is that, unless they are legally mandated (which I intentionally did not set out in my question), they are actually illegal. In most 1st-world (going by common definition, not a specific one) countries, it is illegal to have identifiably discriminatory hiring practices. One can opt to hire "only women" for a role, and one can opt to hire "only men" for a role, but the requirements of the position must be justified and made clear to any applicants (so that if a dude applies to play the part of Marylin Monroe in a theater production, he knows he'll be turned down). But gender quotas cannot function like that, they are a "behind the scenes" process that will discriminate against viable male candidates once all the "male" slots are filled. The logical progression of that practice is such that first, you will break discrimination laws, and second, whichever females you hire afterwards will only be hired on the basis of not having a penis. A motivation that my mother, sister, and female friends have said is something they would find insulting. So you got yer discrimination, lawbreaking, and insults all on gender quotas.

I'm a fan of the "choose your own path" type of society, where people are truly allowed to go where they want, so long as it is not anti-social (an action that degrades human society by limiting the freedoms and wellbeing of all others). We're not quite there yet on both sides of the gender divide, but we are seeing that society is no longer activley opposed to having more women in technology - as seen by recent upticks in female students of those subjects. But, somehow, this never translates into women taking those jobs.

Ketara beat me to it, this "neo-Marxist" thought seems to have dismissed most core principles of Marxism, So I dont see why the point in calling it that . To be honest this sounds like just a new variation of "Cultutal Marxist" or the nazis "Cultural Bolshevism" meme

So for the people asking for "female" soldiers in this game, I have said that at the scale you cannot notice the difference, I was told I was wrong, never mind I work for the military and see it every single day, nope the civvies with no actual knowledge know better.

So here are a couple of pics to highlight that when in full PPE, woman look pretty much like smaller men, the issue get compounded when you have several shorter men with them (a real problem I have as I am quite tall), they blend in even more, this is not opinion, this is fact.

So if these people really want female soldiers , what they are really asking for is exagerated female forms, boob plate, long hair and feminine features that are so obvious that I wouldnt be surprised if they move the goal posts again and claim they are sexist due to being exagerated.


Please don't attach non wargaming images to dakka. If you wish to show images like this you need to us image tags and link to an offfsite host.
Reds8n