Feminists Accidentally Discover Reality

Revisiting comedy gold from my old WordPress blog.

Every once in a while, feminist morons catch a glimpse of the order of the universe. Here are some of those rare moments.

[Bold emphases mine.]

→ Carlson A. (2016) Sex, Biological Functions and Social Norms: A Simple Constructivist Theory of Sex. Nordic Journal of Feminist and Gender Research, 24(1):18–29.

Feminist theory needs a constructivist account of biological sex for at least two reasons. The first is that as long as female and male are the only two sexes that are taken for granted, being cisgender, heterosexual, and preferably a parent will be the norm, and being intersexed, transgender, bi- or homosexual, infertile or voluntarily childless will be deemed failure. The second is the fact that, usually, sex and gender come together in the way that is expected, i.e. the fact that most females are women and most males are men needs to be explained. This paper provides a constructivist theory of sex, which is that the sex categories depend on norms of reproduction. I argue that, because the sex categories are defined according to the two functions or causal roles in reproduction, and biological function is a teleological concept involving purposes, goals, and values, female and male are normative categories. As there are no norms or values in nature, normative categories are social constructions; hence, female and male are not natural but social categories. Once we understand that biological normativity is social, biological norms of heterosexuality, fertility, and so on are no longer incontestable. In addition, as many gender norms also concern reproduction—socially mediated reproduction—this simple theory of sex explains the common confluence of sex and gender.

→ Nentwich JC. (2008) New Fathers and Mothers as Gender Troublemakers? Exploring Discursive Constructions of Heterosexual Parenthood and their Subversive Potential. Feminism & Psychology, 18(2):207–230.

Current constructions of heterosexual parenthood in western societies seem to be trapped in a change-retention dilemma. Many elements have changed, but many others have stayed the same. Although ‘new fathers’ do change diapers, the mother is very often seen as the ‘main parent’. Parenthood is still constructed along the heterosexual gender binary that equates women with mothers and men with fathers. In this article, I analyse four different scenarios of parenthood that were discursively constructed in 21 interviews in Switzerland. I focus on the discursive construction of the subject positions ‘mother’ and ‘father’, the discourses drawn upon, and their potential to subvert the gendered construction of heterosexual parenthood when justifying certain versions of parenthood. Drawing on Judith Butler’s concept of ‘gender trouble’, I explore the possibilities for change and the dangers of reifying the gender binary, and critically discuss the possibilities and limitations of gender trouble in this context.

Also, if you look really closely at water, you will find that it is wet.

Profound, no?

5 thoughts on “Feminists Accidentally Discover Reality

  1. This feminist research borders on the stupid. This is waste of time and money. They state the obvious in scientific terms. Anyone with some scientific background and knowledge can achieve this.
    NON CONTROVERSY thank you for this article it made me laugh.

    1. “Feelz” are part of reality, although technicians and logic-only-minded people have a hard time realizing it.

      Read Gustave le Bon’s Psychology of Crowds, and see if “feelz” have played, are playing, and will playing a part bigger or smaller than your systems of equations and complex geometry and whatever else in the world.

      Or read one of the books (it’s the same book, really) published by Robert Trivers on deception and self-deception.

      Society and its culture have NEVER been about truth, logic, evidence.

      Truth logic evidence (would) DESTROY associated life.

      Associated, common life is based on HIDING, and PRETENDING it is not there, whatever would arouse the pride, vanity, senses of inferiority and superiority, and so forth and so on, that lie at the core of the human mind.

      Now, in our age, science is always under the limelight.
      These people… live in front of a camera — at least in front of journalists, ready to swoop on them, opportunistically.

      Social science can be only lies.
      Science can be only lies, in as much as it touches on the collective and individual psychology of people (and you have hyaenas ready to catch every public relation mistake and ruin your career).

      1. “Feelz” are part of reality, but it doesn’t change that reality doesn’t care about “feelz”.

        Rhetoric aside, we all know that feelings will influence our perception of reality. The people you label as “technicians” and ” logic-only-minded people” know that. What you don’t seem to understand is those you label as “technicians” and “logic-only-minded people” try to discard as much as possible their feelings in order to have a better perception of reality. Those people are interested in reality, not only in themselves and their own, selfishly motivated, perception of reality.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *