上位 200 件のコメント表示する 500

[–]dieyoung 222 ポイント223 ポイント  (17子コメント)

What is the difference between feminist ethics and the study of just plain old ethics?

[–]Soycrates 97 ポイント98 ポイント  (31子コメント)

What are some of the most controversial topics in feminist ethics today?

[–]SamanthaBrennan[S] 78 ポイント79 ポイント  (28子コメント)

There's controversial and then there's challenging. Let me say a bit about the latter. How to do intersectional feminist analysis well? How should we think about the category "woman" if we aren't going to be essentialists about sex and gender? How useful is the category "woman" given all the variability in women's lives and experiences?

Controversial? Anything to do with sex (sex work, porn, etc), best routes to social change, economic policies....

[–]333gggbbb 54 ポイント55 ポイント  (23子コメント)

Can you help me understand the whole "gender is a social construct idea". If gender isn't based on biological sex, then what is the proper definition of gender? What are the traits that are biological and what are the ones that are "socially constructed"? How do we objectively discover the difference?

What are your thoughts on people "identifying" as something other than male or female? And why is it that people can change their gender because "I feel like a man/woman" but that same logic doesn't apply when someone says "I identify as black because i feel that way"?

[–]prenis 22 ポイント23 ポイント  (12子コメント)

Some feminists (second wave and contemporary radical feminists) consider gender to be not an identity but a system of social norms. So women are expected to act one way because they're women, and men another way because they're men. In this view, to say you 'identify' as a certain gender is meaningless because gender is externally imposed upon us, not an internal sense.

[–]lvllabyes 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (7子コメント)

Nonbinary person here!

For me, and for most other nb people I've met, it's less of a gender roles thing and more not feeling like you are male or female by definition. There's definitely a physical component to it - I really feel like I'm supposed to be androgynous - and I sometimes feel wrong being referred to as either a man or a woman. So I'd say it's less about what men and women do and more about what they are.

[–]SamanthaBrennan[S] 21 ポイント22 ポイント  (1子コメント)

I recommend this, Beyond the Binary: Thinking about Sex and Gender - Broadview Press by Shannon Dea

[–]SamanthaBrennan[S] 17 ポイント18 ポイント  (1子コメント)

More books to recommend!

Theorizing Feminisms: A Reader by Elizabeth Hackett and Sally Haslanger Paperback

Saly Haslanger, Resisting Reality: Social Construction and Social Critique 2012

[–]MrDownhillRacer 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Thanks for the recommendations! I'll check these out!

[–]TheCheetoBurrito 59 ポイント60 ポイント  (3子コメント)

What is your stance on women being drafted into the military?

[–]xxhalesxxo 11 ポイント12 ポイント  (1子コメント)

I'm writing my dissertation right now about existential feminism in Shakespeare, so what do you think of Simone de Beauvoir?

[–]Luemas91 33 ポイント34 ポイント  (9子コメント)

What is your opinion on abortion? It tends to be a complicated issue so I'm interested in hearing your thoughts.

[–]SamanthaBrennan[S] 69 ポイント70 ポイント  (8子コメント)

I divide thinking about abortion into questions about policy and questions about personal morality. My own view is that there is nothing particularly problematic about early stage abortion. My policy view is freedom of choice. It's a medical matter.

[–]BasedFagit 3 ポイント4 ポイント  (3子コメント)

do you believe that abortion (asides from cases caused by rape, incest, or where the fetus is endangering the life of the pregnant women) should be covered and paid for by healthcare?

[–]SoyBeanExplosion 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Thanks for taking the time to answer these questions.

I am very curious your personal view actually, because your answer suggests that you are at least somewhat concerned about mid- to late-term abortions, even though early-stage abortions are, as you put it, not particularly problematic.

I was wondering if you would be willing to explain a little more about what your thoughts are on the issue, and whether I'm right in detecting some hesitancy or disquiet at the notion of mid- to late-term abortions (even if your policy prescription nonetheless remains the same), and if so what it is that concerns you about it? Or, indeed, if you've already written a paper on this, that would be fine too.

[–]anonymousalternate 88 ポイント89 ポイント  (41子コメント)

Is intolerance of intolerance a sustainable model for a successful campaign for change or are there alternatives that could further positive social change without resorting to tactics developed by those feminists are opposing?

In other words, can we fight a system without becoming the system we fight?

[–]ILikeSmug 9 ポイント10 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Didn't Rousseau call this "anticlericalism"? It ultimately led to the Reformation, so I'd say based on that one historical datapoint, the answer to your question is, "Yes". :)

But I think your question already contains the assumption that feminism is intolerant of intolerance. That assumption undermines your question because it presupposes that is actually what is going on.

Criticism of the system is not the same thing as systematic discrimination, but both could be labelled as subsets of intolerance if you bend the definition enough. Simply labeling every disagreement as intolerance misses the intent, context, and meaning of the issues.

EDIT: I upvoted you because I think your question is important and I'd like to know more as well.

[–]SamanthaBrennan[S] 38 ポイント39 ポイント  (29子コメント)

I'm not sure what you mean by "intolerance of intolerance"? Give me an example. Personally I'm fan of tolerating the intolerant unless my rights are involved.

[–]KaliYugaz 62 ポイント63 ポイント  (26子コメント)

Take the whole gay wedding cake bakery fiasco as an example. The problem is that when two supposed "rights" conflict (religious freedom vs LGBT rights), there doesn't appear to be any rational basis upon which the disagreement can be resolved. Both sides get accused by the other of being "intolerant".

Some philosophers think that this is a result of the intrinsic incoherence and vacuousness of rights theory, as opposed to, say, virtue ethics. All that is happening is that moral rhetoric about rights is being used to mask arbitrary preferences and amoral power politics, and that the "winner" of the argument is often just whichever faction manages to persuade the State (in this case the SCOTUS) who to lend its coercive force to.

[–]If_thou_beest_he 9 ポイント10 ポイント  (2子コメント)

Some philosophers think that this is a result of the intrinsic incoherence and vacuousness of rights theory, as opposed to, say, virtue ethics. All that is happening is that moral rhetoric about rights is being used to mask arbitrary preferences and amoral power politics, and that the "winner" of the argument is often just whichever faction manages to persuade the State (in this case the SCOTUS) who to lend its coercive force to.

This is a bit quick, though. Rights theory being ultimately inconsistent doesn't mean that people are merely expressing in a masked way arbitrary preferences.

[–]KaliYugaz 11 ポイント12 ポイント  (1子コメント)

Well if we have no way of knowing what a "right" even is, and no way of rationally deciding between two "rights", then what are people doing when they appeal to these spooky "rights" anyways?

Either they are implicitly using a more substantive non-rights based ethical theory that does all the heavy lifting, and then expressing this in the incoherent moral language they were taught to use, or else they really are just being manipulative by using moralizing language as an expressive amplifier.

[–]testmypatience 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (2子コメント)

The gay wedding bakery issue is interesting. It isn't the only scenario that has to do with services and beliefs. The other one I know of is the muslims being allowed to refuse to handle alcohol and pork even in their containers when ringing those things up in retail scenarios for instance.

My stance is, if it is your job, just do your job, but it also seems reasonable that people to refuse things on their own personal beliefs regardless of being able to back up those beliefs, hence beliefs, not facts. At that point you get two factions duking it out over beliefs, not facts.

[–]ContraPositive 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (18子コメント)

The problem is that when two supposed "rights" conflict (religious freedom vs LGBT rights), there doesn't appear to be any rational basis upon which the disagreement can be resolved.

IMO the example you brought up is an extremely specious one. You don't have the right to own a bakery and discriminate against a certain population. Similar arguments were made to discriminate against black people back in the day, and they were also specious.

[–]75839021 25 ポイント26 ポイント  (8子コメント)

You don't have the right to own a bakery and discriminate against a certain population.

Why?

[–]ContraPositive 3 ポイント4 ポイント  (3子コメント)

For-profit public accommodations like a cake shop don't have the right to discriminate against the public. The owner of Masterpiece Cakeshop is a private citizen, and in his private life he's free to not make cakes for gay people. In his private mind, he's free to think what he wants about gay people. But the rights being juxtaposed in cases like Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission ARE NOT the rights of the business owner vs the customer. The rights being juxtaposed ARE the rights of the business entity vs the customer. Business entities have different rights than flesh and blood humans. Those rights vary by what type of entity they are, and for for-profit business entities that are public accommodations, they lack the right to discriminate against protected classes. This is why that case, and those like it, are specious. Those who favor the right to discriminate on religious grounds try to confuse the rights of human people and businesses.

[–]PathofViktory 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (1子コメント)

The practical argument tends to be that if even a private business caters to the public, then it would significantly harm and place an undue unequal burden on people who have to suffer at the hands of the social majority.

[–]KaliYugaz 12 ポイント13 ポイント  (5子コメント)

Sure, but why is it specious? This is exactly the sort of emotivist reasoning I am talking about; a terrible non-argument that just happened to get the right conclusion. The libertarians will claim their "freedom of association", and the religious will claim their "freedom of conscience". What actual rational justification is there to consider one right more important than another?

[–]ContraPositive 7 ポイント8 ポイント  (1子コメント)

Is it emotivist reasoning to not explain my reasoning at all and just call something specious? It's certainly a non-argument though.

Anyways, to get right to it, for-profit public accommodations like a cake shop don't have the right to discriminate against the public. The owner of Masterpiece Cakeshop is a private citizen, and in his private life he's free to not make cakes for gay people. In his private mind, he's free to think what he wants about gay people. But the rights being juxtaposed in cases like Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission ARE NOT the rights of the business owner vs the customer. The rights being juxtaposed ARE the rights of the business entity vs the customer. Business entities have different rights than flesh and blood humans. Those rights vary by what type of entity they are, and for for-profit business entities that are public accommodations, they lack the right to discriminate against protected classes. This is why that case, and those like it, are specious. Those who favor the right to discriminate on religious grounds try to confuse the rights of human people and businesses.

[–]fourhoarsemen 3 ポイント4 ポイント  (0子コメント)

I'm not /u/anonymousalternate, but I'll give a meaning of "intolerance of intolerance" by swapping in the definition of tolerance and tolerate from the Oxford Dictionary.

Tolerance:

The ability or willingness to tolerate the existence of opinions or behaviour that one dislikes or disagrees with: 'the tolerance of corruption'

Tolerate:

Allow the existence, occurrence, or practice of (something that one dislikes or disagrees with) without interference: 'a regime unwilling to tolerate dissent'

Using those two definitions, when you say "I'm a fan of tolerating the intolerant unless my rights are involved", by the Oxford Dictionary's standards, you're also saying:

I'm a fan of allowing the existence, occurrence, or practice (of something that one dislikes or disagrees with without interference) of those that are not tolerant, or those that would not allow the existence, occurrence, or practice of something that [the intolerant] would dislike or disagree with, unless my rights are involved.

Would you agree with the above interpretation of what you mean when you say, "I'm a fan of tolerating the intolerant"?

[–]morphogenes 82 ポイント83 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Is the lack of political diversity a problem in the humanities? Why or why not?

http://yoelinbar.net/papers/political_diversity.pdf

A lack of political diversity in psychology is said to lead to a number of pernicious outcomes, including biased research and active discrimination against conservatives. The authors of this study surveyed a large number (combined N = 800) of social and personality psychologists and discovered several interesting facts. First, although only 6% described themselves as conservative "overall," there was more diversity of political opinion on economic issues and foreign policy. Second, respondents significantly underestimated the proportion of conservatives among their colleagues. Third, conservatives fear negative consequences of revealing their political beliefs to their colleagues. Finally, they are right to do so: In decisions ranging from paper reviews to hiring, many social and personality psychologists said that they would discriminate against openly conservative colleagues. The more liberal respondents were, the more they said they would discriminate.

Composite scores of perceived hostile climate for conservatives (! = .85) were significantly correlated with political orientation, r(263) = .28, p < .0001: The more liberal respondents were, the less they believed that conservatives faced a hostile climate. This correlation was driven entirely by more conservative respondents' greater personal experience of a hostile climate: Controlling for personal experience, the relationship disappeared (r = âˆ'.01), suggesting that the hostile climate reported by conservatives is invisible to those who do not experience it themselves.

At the end of our surveys, we gave room for comments. Many respondents wrote that they could not believe that anyone in the field would ever deliberately discriminate against conservatives. Yet at the same time we found clear examples of discrimination. One participant described how a colleague was denied tenure because of his political beliefs. Another wrote that if the department "could figure out who was a conservative they would be sure not to hire them."

-- -- Yoel Inbar and Joris Lammers, "Political Diversity in Social and Personality Psychology"

[–]cavera_ 32 ポイント33 ポイント  (0子コメント)

What is your opinion on Dr Jordan B Peterson views on affirmative action laws on gender equality?

[–]youaredumbandwrong 6 ポイント7 ポイント  (8子コメント)

What is your best argument against veganism?

[–]SamanthaBrennan[S] 34 ポイント35 ポイント  (7子コメント)

Against? I think most of the arguments are in favour. But I'm not a vegan. Okay, here's the best argument, I can think of. We want to minimize animal suffering, let's assume. But veganism is really really hard. vegans get in trouble for eating honey, wearing leather. And it's demanding. No cheese! So tough. As a result people say "I could never be a vegan" and they do nothing. They go on eating beef, and drinking milk, and maybe even veal. If I can't do it all, they say, I'll do nothing, And no one could expect me to do all that. Being a vegan is just too demanding.

So that's my best argument against veganism.

Better, just do what you can. Eat less meat, drink less milk. Cause less animal suffering but don't let the perfect get in the way of the good.

Also, hypocrisy is overrated as a vice. Do we really think it's better to be bad 100% of the time than good 75% and bad 25%?

[–]Soycrates 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (3子コメント)

vegans get in trouble for eating honey, wearing leather.

We don't get in trouble for these things; the Vegan Police aren't real despite what people would like to believe. But we do try to avoid these things because we understand the ethical ramifications of their consumption. If we fail, it's okay, because we just try again.

Ultimately I think people should push themselves to do better than the day before, and that typically means not telling yourself "I can't do it all, so I'll set limits". Maybe set limits for today - less meat, less milk - but it's helpful to set progressive goals. Less and less animal exploitation involved in your life until you can say you've virtually ruled it out.

There's no reason to cause some animal suffering when you know logically you could cause little to none. That's not the perfect being the enemy of the good; that's just asking yourself what you're actually capable of and sticking to it.

Cheese is not more important than ethics. Imagine someone choosing cheese over any other ethical obligation and it becomes clearer how much of a non-issue it should be.

[–]TychoCelchuuuΦ 22 ポイント23 ポイント  (7子コメント)

How do you feel about group rights? Are there any such things? If there aren't, why not? If there are, are they reducible to individual rights, or are they sui generis? What sorts of group rights might there be? Any other thoughts on the topic?

[–]SamanthaBrennan[S] 17 ポイント18 ポイント  (3子コメント)

In the first instance it's my inclination to talk about rights individuals have as members of a group. Can you give me an example of a group right that can't be translated into individual rights talk? (I think groups are incredibly useful social concepts, just not group rights.)

[–]TychoCelchuuuΦ 11 ポイント12 ポイント  (1子コメント)

This article talks about examples, like the right to political self-determination, the right that a group's culture should be respected, the right to use a language in the public domain (to have translators, etc.), and so forth.

Whether these can or can't be translated into individual rights talk depends on who you ask, but we could imagine someone saying (for instance) that you can't capture language rights just with individual rights talk because it's not like anyone who invents a language has a right that government documents be translated into that language. Moreover, the right (if it exists) seems to be for the sake not just of existing group members but also for anyone who ever will be a member of the group, etc.

[–]john_stuart_kill 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (2子コメント)

Hey, /u/TychoCelchuuu; good to run into you outside of /r/askphilosophy! Not Samantha Brennan, but I've worked with her, and have a resource suggestion on this: are you familiar with Tracy Isaacs' Moral Responsibility in Collective Contexts? While not exactly what you were asking about, it might help shed some significant light on some of the problems you're interested in (it's about group responsibility more than group rights...but we should not be surprised to find that responsibility and rights are related).

[–]TychoCelchuuuΦ 3 ポイント4 ポイント  (1子コメント)

I'm not really interested in what Tracy Isaacs thinks about group rights - I mean, I am, but not in the context of an AMA with Samantha Brennan, you see what I mean? It's not like I don't know anything about group rights and I'm trying to learn about the topic, rather, I'm curious what a philosopher who works on rights thinks about group rights, because it's a topic I'm interested in, and I want to see how her views match up to my own.

[–]SicSemperSocialists 28 ポイント29 ポイント  (7子コメント)

How does one quantify equality? I read some examples you provided in "The Moral Status of Micro-Inequities" that represent small cases of inequality. Considering what may be disparaging to one person may not even be regarded as such by another, how do you view your work contributing to the workplace? And as an aside, what are the ramifications of lack of support for hetero-normative people? I imagine being looked over and seen as not deserving extra support can feel like inequality.

[–]testmypatience 6 ポイント7 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Sub question: Is it more beneficial/good/better to be exactly the same/equal in outcome OR fair/merit based?

[–]SamanthaBrennan[S] 26 ポイント27 ポイント  (5子コメント)

In the workplace examples I'm interested in very concrete, measurable outcomes such as pay, performance evaluation, time to promotion. The micro-inequities are small differences in treatment that don't matter in and themselves but do matter when they lead to serious differences in outcome.

[–]SicSemperSocialists 3 ポイント4 ポイント  (4子コメント)

Thank you for clarifying.

Sounds like your micro-inequities suffer from some post-hoc problems. "They don't matter until something bad happens, and the bad thing happened only because of the micro-inequities".

[–]Th3Merchant 10 ポイント11 ポイント  (2子コメント)

Can you elaborate? I don't see how your logic follows. It seems to me that small things that affect your perception of a person in subconscious ways would absolutely affect major outcomes.

[–]SicSemperSocialists 5 ポイント6 ポイント  (1子コメント)

I completely agree with you, perceptions do affect how you interact with somebody, and can manifest greatly.

However, the logic behind testing for this relationship seems shoddy.

The micro-inequities are small differences in treatment that don't matter in and themselves but do matter when they lead to serious differences in outcome.

  • Micro-inequities are not intrinsically negative
  • However, if a subject experiences "serious differences in outcome" and experiences micro-inequities, then they experienced the "serious differences in outcome" because of micro-inequities.

I would be interested in broadening the scope of research to include measuring other characteristics that cause pay differences, yearly reviews, etc. e.g., work ethic, performance in previous jobs, ability to work under stress.

[–]Khjuu 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Micro-inequities are not intrinsically negative However, if a subject experiences "serious differences in outcome" and experiences micro-inequities, then they experienced the "serious differences in outcome" because of micro-inequities.

Look at it like poking yourself with a knife. If you're sufficiently gentle, you won't even experience discomfort. Apply a little more pressure and you experience a slight sting and a drop of blood comes out. Apply a lot of pressure and you have a stab wound.

A thing in a small quantity can be benign, but become a serious problem in a larger volume. I think what Dr. Brennan is saying is that any particular instance of micro-inequality without any other instances or negative social context is like applying the smallest possible amount of pressure with the knife. You don't then have a post-hoc problem on that basis if you say that a lot of pressure can cause a stab wound.

[–]marquis_physics 4 ポイント5 ポイント  (4子コメント)

Thank you for your time.

If you could make a reading list of a few books for the layperson on feminist ethics, what would be on it?

[–]SamanthaBrennan[S] 11 ポイント12 ポイント  (3子コメント)

[–]SamanthaBrennan[S] 5 ポイント6 ポイント  (1子コメント)

See also Justice and Care: Essential Readings in Feminist Ethics By Virginia Held

[–]SamanthaBrennan[S] 4 ポイント5 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Also, Analyzing Oppression | Ann E. Cudd and Shannon Dea, Beyond the Binary

[–]caspain1397 29 ポイント30 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Does making the distinction between people eg. Race, gender encourage people to embrace others diversity, or does it just further the divide?

[–]completely-ineffable 39 ポイント40 ポイント  (10子コメント)

Thank you for taking the time to do this AMA, Professor Brennan.

In your "The Moral Status of Micro-Inequities", you mention a forthcoming paper with Meghan Winsby which proposes micro-sanctions as one tool for combating micro-inequities. In your essay, you give a brief explanation of micro-sanctions, with a couple of examples. It looks to be a useful concept, but from just the short treatment in your essay I don't think I have a good understanding of what exactly you mean by it. Since your paper with Winsby is not yet published, could you expound a little bit here about micro-sanctions?

[–]SamanthaBrennan[S] 69 ポイント70 ポイント  (8子コメント)

Great question. I was just chatting about microsanctions in a grad seminar at U of T I'm sitting in on b/c they are reading my work. Here's an example. Suppose there is a professor on your campus with racist views. Suppose he's protected by academic freedom. Fine. But do you have to have lunch with him? No.

Are there people in your social circle making sexist jokes? How about just not laughing. That's an excellent social microsanction. My point is that it's the big guns of rules and laws or nothing. We have all sorts of social norms that reinforce good behavior and penalize bad behavior.

[–]Lonelobo 7 ポイント8 ポイント  (0子コメント)

This is one of those answers that makes me love analytic philosophy.

[–]SpasticSquid 33 ポイント34 ポイント  (65子コメント)

Do women and men have inherently different behavior? If yes, should our social sphere reflect that? For instance, if women and men respond differently to romance, should we have a different expectation for men than we have for women? To what extent are men and women the same and to what extent are they different?

[–]SamanthaBrennan[S] 33 ポイント34 ポイント  (17子コメント)

I suspect the range of behavior inside the category "men" and inside the category "women" is as big as the range of behavior between men and women. Also, I'm not sure what you mean by "inherently" here. Like biologically determined?

[–]testmypatience 6 ポイント7 ポイント  (45子コメント)

I'm not OP but this seems simple enough to answer, so I will.

Do women and men have inherently different behavior?

Yes. It is because of Sexual Dimorphism. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_dimorphism#Humans

The body structure is physically different such as genitals, bone density, height, muscle structure, hormones, etc. Even crying is different physically due to the way the tear ducts are different from male to female.

The behaviors are different in emotional controls, how sex is reacted to, mating strategies, interest inclinations (even from the baby age), etc.

If yes, should our social sphere reflect that?

The social sphere and any sphere should reflect what objectively exists and not use subjective information that is defined by an ideal that doesn't physically exist in reality.

For instance, if women and men respond differently to romance, should we have a different expectation for men than we have for women?

If they are objectively different in how they behave, then they should be treated objectively as to how they behave which would be differently by definition.

To what extent are men and women the same and to what extent are they different?

The short answer is: Physically and behaviorially

The long answer is: Sexual Dimorphism and books and books worth of social dynamics information that can largely be encompassed inside of standard psychology texts as well as dating, marriage, and career related self help books.

[–]KaliYugaz 71 ポイント72 ポイント  (4子コメント)

The behaviors are different in emotional controls, how sex is reacted to, mating strategies, interest inclinations (even from the baby age), etc.

The social sphere and any sphere should reflect what objectively exists and not use subjective information that is defined by an ideal that doesn't physically exist in reality.

You're mixing up empirical and normative here. Just because people are observed to behave a certain way doesn't mean that they ought to behave that way, or that we should just allow them to do whatever they feel like doing regardless of what they actually ought to do. Babies and toddlers, after all, have an innate urge to bite people and throw things, but we go to great lengths to condition them out of this kind of behavior.

Unless you can prove that certain forms of gender-dimorphic behavior are un-alterable, you haven't given us a reason to abandon attempts to change the conditioning and incentives that our society uses to shape the gendered behavior of women (or men).

as well as dating, marriage, and career related self help books.

Self help books are pop-culture trash that pander to uncritical biases, and no basic psychology textbook I have ever read claimed that gendered behavior was completely biologically unalterable. There's no reason for me to take your argument seriously unless you can cite some real sources.

[–]mediaisdelicious 31 ポイント32 ポイント  (3子コメント)

For the reasons given by /u/TychoCelchuuu, /u/KaliYugaz, and /u/TheoryOfSomething this answer begs the question in several important ways.

The immediate problem here is that sexual dimorphism isn't even descriptively basic since neither genotype nor phenotype is obviously dimorphic (there are many assortments of sex chromosomes in the population). Even among fertile individuals this is true (if you wanted to give primacy to such a feature). There is no reason to think that we could not use all the available individual facts about human biology to refer to it as trimorphism (which, functionally, we do since the category of intersex is already well recognized) or some other -morphism.

[–]TychoCelchuuuΦ 18 ポイント19 ポイント  (29子コメント)

Note that "men" and "women" are terms that typically refer to genders (see also here for a more philosophical discussion) rather than sexes, which we refer to with terms like "male" and "female." So, simply discovering sexual dimorphism in humans tells us little to nothing about whether men and women have "inherently different behavior," whatever that might mean, because some males are men and others are women, and ditto for females.

[–]mismos00 14 ポイント15 ポイント  (24子コメント)

I think little to nothing is stretching it as the correlation between gender in sex is very, very strong. Transgender people make up 1% of the population at most, and likely less than half of that. A 99% correlation is not little to nothing.

[–]TychoCelchuuuΦ 33 ポイント34 ポイント  (20子コメント)

If 99% of people born in Sweden speak Swedish, this doesn't mean that people born in Sweden inherently have large vowel inventories. It just means that social processes in Sweden are such that lots and lots of people born there learn Swedish and as a result have large vowel inventories. There's nothing inherent about it, though. A Swedish person doesn't inherently have a large vowel inventory just in virtue of being born there.

Similarly, if 99% of males are men, this doesn't mean that males are inherently men, and thus we can't take evidence of sexual dimorphism to tell us anything about whether men and women are inherently different. We'd have to rule out the other possibility, which is that social processes are such that lots and lots of males end up men, even though there's nothing inherent about it.

[–]Aeium 6 ポイント7 ポイント  (10子コメント)

The way I see it, human behavior output is probably a combination of social, epigenetic, and genetic inputs.

So, if social experiences my father had methylated some hormone producing gene a certain way, would that be a social or genetic process?

The view that all behavior can be explained by experiences seems like a convienent compromise between the unknowns in biology and the moral demands of social science, and history.

But many people have a feeling that their biology does influence their behavior, and from what I know about the biology it seems very plausible if not likely that they are rIght. But it also seems like this perspective would afford less dignity to people.

It seems to me like a real mature scientific and responsible understanding of what humans are is very far away.

Given the lack of that, I think it makes more sense to insist on universal human dignity from a theological standpoint than a scientific one.

After all, it may be the case that many factors involved with human behavior may not be simply unknown but unknowable.

Some things in computer science (I have a fairly interdisciplinary education, but mostly comp sci) can be proven undecidable, or unknowable. It is an entire class of program complexity, and probably the largest class the same way irrational numbers are the largest class of number.

It seems to me that people need spiritual guidance on this topic more so than scientific guidance.

[–]TychoCelchuuuΦ 10 ポイント11 ポイント  (8子コメント)

I'm not sure what you're talking about. "Man" and "woman" are not biological categories, they are social categories, so all this talk about biology influencing behavior seems neither here nor there if the question is whether men or women are "inherently" different.

[–]Aeium 4 ポイント5 ポイント  (3子コメント)

You are quoting "Man" and "Woman" but I didn't say either word in my post, so I'm not really sure who you are quoting.

I was speaking to the complexities involved with attributing behavior to biology, which in my opinion, is the real issue here, not naming conventions.

[–]TychoCelchuuuΦ 5 ポイント6 ポイント  (2子コメント)

You are quoting "Man" and "Woman" but I didn't say either word in my post, so I'm not really sure who you are quoting.

The person who originally asked the question.

I was speaking to the complexities involved with attributing behavior to biology, which in my opinion, is the real issue here, not naming conventions.

Right, and that is why you are off-base. You think the "real issue" here is a biological one, but it is not, because "man" and "woman" are not biological categories. This is like someone asking about Protestants and Catholics and you responding with some sort of treatise on hormones and genes and whatever.

[–]75839021 3 ポイント4 ポイント  (3子コメント)

I'm not sure if that's true. Granting that "man" and "woman" are social categories, it's still an open question whether there happens to be biological differences between the categories or not. As an analogy, the category "jobless person" is a social category, but you might very well find a greater biological predisposition to mental illness among people in the "jobless person" category than people outside of it.

[–]TychoCelchuuuΦ 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

I might find a biological predisposition to pale skin and fair eyes in people who have large vowel inventories, but this doesn't mean that Swedes are genetically predisposed to large vowel inventories.

[–]imnotarobotbuzzbuzz 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (3子コメント)

I thought the term man simply refers to a human male and woman refers to a human female. I'm curious about the subject and not understanding why there is so much confusion. Could you explain?

[–]TheoryOfSomething 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (1子コメント)

Except that the correlation is non-causal, and the question was about inherent differences. Men are not necessarily inherently males, so why should we think that maleness inherently tell us something about being a man?

[–]StWd 16 ポイント17 ポイント  (13子コメント)

Sometimes I hear about healthcare professionals being berated by patients for "not following their own advice". For example, obese patients who refuse to take the medical advice of overweight doctors. Do you find that as a philosopher of ethics, people have certain expectations about you? Do people expect you to be the absolute paragon of morality since you write about it so often?

Thanks for doing this AMA and sorry my question sucks. I'm checking your wordpress out now! :)

edit: Do you ever worry that by talking about issues of fit/fat and the stigmatisation of fatness etc, you are reifying the illusory fat/thin binary in a similar way to how some anti-racists have been criticised for reifying race by constantly talking about it?

If you would allow me to quote from a final year undergrad paper I wrote, I have a question about it linking to your ideas about institutional solutions.

When discussing stigma, it’s possible to categorise people into at least 3 distinct types: the “own” - the usually minority group which is subject to stigma; the “normal”- the group which is not stigmatised and usually stigmatises the “own” group; and the “wise” - a group which consists of members that do not carry the stigma but are sympathetic to that group (Goffman, 1963). One empirical study which supports Goffman’s theory expands on the “wise” category by showing how there are 2 subcategories within this group: the active wise, who encouraged confronting stigma and stigmatisation; and the passive wise, who did not (Smith, 2012).

If sociologists are to really engage with the public (Burawoy, 2004) in a moral endeavour to improve society (Mills, 1959) then I think it is clear that we should all become part of the “active wise” group. We should point out when medicalisation discourse is used as deceptive marketing strategy (Salant & Santry, 2006), disseminate scientific evidence which is contrary to popular belief or common sense, such as the obesity paradox literature or failures to attribute causal links between fatness, health and activity (Metcalf, et al., 2011), and encourage what some authors call fat pedagogy (Cameron, 2015) and fat activism (Gurrieri, 2013). There is a special irony about this issue sociologists need to take note of- usually when taking up the call to public sociology, we are encouraged to explain private troubles as public issues. In this case, we need to explain how this public issues translate to private troubles for individuals.

In a sense what I am getting at with how sociologists should all become part of the active-wise group seems similar to your ideas except there would be explicit rules which mean teachers, or whomever, are obligated as part of their job contract to become part of this group. Have I understood this correctly? Thanks!

[–]SamanthaBrennan[S] 18 ポイント19 ポイント  (12子コメント)

Question 1: No ethicists aren't any more ethical than other people. It's an area of research expertise, not a guarantee that we'll do the right thing. That said, I do think we struggle with daily life issues (like meat eating) more than the average person.

Question 2: Yeah, I worry that I oversimplify when talking about body size. Obesity is super complicated. Not even sure it's a useful concept. I think there's an awful lot going on there and lots of medically distinct categories being run together. Work to be done!

[–]333gggbbb 19 ポイント20 ポイント  (11子コメント)

Obesity is super complicated. Not even sure it's a useful concept.

How can obesity not be useful concept when obesity is literally just a name for an actual state of reality?

[–]TychoCelchuuuΦ 24 ポイント25 ポイント  (0子コメント)

I think the idea is that the "actual state of reality" is not a particularly well-regimented state of reality such that using one term to refer to everything under its umbrella is helpful. So for instance if I have a word called "gloobamop" that refers to chairs, potatoes, and things that catch fire on Tuesdays, we might think that this is not a very useful concept, because I'm not going to be able to say much of anything interesting about gloobamops. I'll have to start subdividing gloobamops if I want to make any sort of inferences about how large gloobamops are, whether they are good to eat, etc.

Similarly, if "obesity" picks out a wide variety of things that aren't helpfully run together, then we might think the concept is not a very useful one.

[–]Face_Roll 16 ポイント17 ポイント  (3子コメント)

Are there distinctly feminine ethical intuitions that have been (historically) excluded from mainstream philosophical ethics? And, if so, what are they and what is their source?

[–]SamanthaBrennan[S] 41 ポイント42 ポイント  (2子コメント)

Lots of feminists point to areas of life that are undertheorized b/c they are usually the domain of women. So, for example, historically it's true that philosophers haven't thought as much about relationships between dependents as they might. Instead, they've looked at relationships between autonomous adults and the state. But that's because of who got to write philosophy and who had to take care of kids and older people. It's not about feminine intuitions so much as it's about intuitions from people who do this or that activity.

[–]drinka40tonight 15 ポイント16 ポイント  (7子コメント)

Apologies, I'm not quite familiar with much of your work (yet!), but:

1) There's been a lot of chatter recently in the philosophy blogs about the Implicit Association Test. I'm curious what your take is on the kerfuffle.

2) I'm curious what you think about the proper limits regarding how parents should help their children. So, like, Swift and Brighouse sort of concerns (or Fishkin tri-lemma sorts of concerns generally) about transmitting (possibly unfair) advantage to their children, whether through financial means or, say, expensive violin lessons.

3) What do you think about parental preferences regarding the sort of children they want to have? In particular, genetic engineering and trait selection? So, like selecting against muscular dystrophy. Or selecting deafness. Or selecting skin color/gender. Or, at the extreme, selecting all sorts of traits (attractiveness, tallness, etc)? No doubt people can select these things for bad reasons, but, if parents have the future-child's best interest at heart ("studies show tall people are happier!" or "studies show society heavily discriminates against dark skin!"), can this sort of trait-selection be done in ways that doesn't commodify people, or present morally troubling issues?

4) You have any thoughts on what constitutes a "family" or what its "essence" is? Or, like, is there something in particular that distinguishes the family from an incredibly close-knit tribe, or community in general (or, I guess, it might not even have to be that close-knit, since what we normally call families don't always seem to be...) I imagine anthropologically we see huge variation across cultures and times and whatnot. Thanks.

[–]SamanthaBrennan[S] 35 ポイント36 ポイント  (6子コメント)

I am going to start by answering 4 because it's the most fun. Frankly I'm not sure why we are so fussed about who counts as family. I was chatting with a friend yesterday and she co-parents her kids with two men, so there are are three parents total. We were wondering why we accept what people say about gender identity and sexual identity but we think it's okay to question who counts as family. I think I'd identify family not by biological ties not by who sleeps with whom, or what they do in bed, but rather by relationships of dependency. Who does the work of parenting?

[–]balrogwarrior 26 ポイント27 ポイント  (3子コメント)

I think I'd identify family not by biological ties not by who sleeps with whom, or what they do in bed, but rather by relationships of dependency. Who does the work of parenting?

That could become a scary concept. If one was to send their kids to school for 8 hours a day, could the school be considered their "parent" due to doing most of the "work of parenting" as you put it? Can you elaborate on what rights biological parents who live with, provide for and raise their children should have?

[–]SamanthaBrennan[S] 7 ポイント8 ポイント  (0子コメント)

And thanks for Reddit gold!"

[–]thedeliriousdonut 7 ポイント8 ポイント  (3子コメント)

Thank you for your time, Professor Brennan.

Your work on non-absolutist deontology and thresholds for rights really interests me. I was wondering if your work is more focused on:

  1. Where the threshold lies.

  2. Justifying that such a threshold exists.

If it happens to be both a strong focus on both the existence of the threshold and how to determine when you defer to consequentialist modes of reasoning, I have an intense curiosity about both of these. Have you managed to come up with a precise explanation for how one could figure out when to override rights or is it based on something perhaps a bit less unambiguous at this point?

Thanks again for doing this, this topic is very interesting to me!

[–]waldorfwithoutwalnut 7 ポイント8 ポイント  (5子コメント)

Professor Brennan, what do you think, both in terms of its rhetorical utility and of its ethical character, about the deployment of strategic gender essentialism? I realize this question is a bit broad, but I'm really interested in reading your thoughts, especially in the light of your work on the visibility of bisexual people, and on micro-inequities.

Thank you for doing this AMA!

[–]completely-ineffable 4 ポイント5 ポイント  (4子コメント)

especially in the light of your work on the visibility of bisexual people,

Do you happen to have a link/citation at hand?

[–]waldorfwithoutwalnut 5 ポイント6 ポイント  (3子コメント)

Yes: “'Those Shoes Are Definitely Bicurious': More Thoughts on the Politics of Fashion,” in Passing/Out: Sexual Identity Veiled and Revealed, Dennis Cooley and Kelby Harrison (editors), Ashgate Publishing, 2012, pp. 171-180.

I haven't been able to get a proper pdf of the book itself, but there's a draft version availiable on PhilPapers.

[–]TychoCelchuuuΦ 3 ポイント4 ポイント  (1子コメント)

Do you mean "Margins Within the Marginal: Bi-invisibility and Intersexual Passing?" The chapter you cite doesn't seem to be in the book.

edit: the book seems like kind of a mess, the first footnote in the chapter seems to reference what I'm assuming is the older title. So I'm guessing they're the same thing just with two different names.

[–]garybuseysawakening 24 ポイント25 ポイント  (12子コメント)

Many men will describe numerous micro-inequalities in their lives to the tune of them handwaved away. How do you respond to this?

[–]SamanthaBrennan[S] 48 ポイント49 ポイント  (2子コメント)

Sure there are lots of inequalities that affect men. I've written about men and body image and about men and deaths from skin cancer. See on the blog, https://fitisafeministissue.com/2014/08/16/men-and-skin-cancer-risk/. I just think the best explanation of where those inequalities come from is a feminist analysis of gender norms.

[–]cuteman 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (2子コメント)

What determines a micro versus a macro in equality?

[–]GoodKingWenceslaus 7 ポイント8 ポイント  (2子コメント)

Would you say that there is a possible pro-life feminist ethics that would be defensible?

[–]SamanthaBrennan[S] 17 ポイント18 ポイント  (1子コメント)

Yes. There is a some good work done on abortion ethics from a pro-life feminist perspective. Think about all the talk in feminist ethics about the moral significance of relationships. If relationships have a bug moral significance then why do women alone get to decide about abortion? "My body, my choice" is a pretty individualist slogan. Some work in feminist virtue ethics might interest you. In any case, yes, you can be pro-life and a feminist.

[–]WheatlyFTW 10 ポイント11 ポイント  (13子コメント)

Can you give a reasonable explanation of privilege, with examples?

[–]SamanthaBrennan[S] 53 ポイント54 ポイント  (11子コメント)

So I attended a women's march last weekend and the police smiled at me. They came over and talked to me about my dog. I was happy to chat with them. Not once did I worry the police might do me harm or arrest me. That's a kind of privilege. Last week I got on the train and someone was in my seat. The ticket taker came over and looked at my ticket and said I had bought the ticket for the wrong day. She asked if I was a professor at Western. I said, yes. We laughed and she found me another seat. She didn't charge me for a new ticket. She just shook her head. That's privilege too.

[–]turkeyjerkey23 19 ポイント20 ポイント  (0子コメント)

talking about your own privilege instead of lashing out at others' privilege is a great way to get people comfortable with the overall concept, thank you

[–]WheatlyFTW 3 ポイント4 ポイント  (3子コメント)

Can you please explain how this is evidence of privilege?

The way i see it, everyone had a reasonable expectation of safety at the march, and you just had a REALLY nice ticket taker.

EDIT: It seems as if i was too late. Oh well...

[–]ChiefDiefenchin 12 ポイント13 ポイント  (1子コメント)

Everybody should have a reasonable expectation of safety, but many people see the police as a symbol of fear and oppression rather than one of safety. It's the difference between the police smiling at you and sneering at you. You believe the presence of cops means the safety of the rally is a given, when to many people it represents the exact opposite. When you grow up seeing cops beating up the homeless, the mentally ill, and detaining people who did nothing wrong, you have a different perspective.

As for the ticket taker, that's a systemic occurrence. See this research showing bus drivers to be twice as likely to give a free ride to white riders without fare as they are black riders.

The thing about privilege is that when you have it, you just think it's normal. When you've grown up with cops always treating you great (& you connect this with being respectful & law-abiding) you never stop and think that there are tons of people who only have overwhelmingly negative interactions with police despite doing nothing wrong.

[–]LumpyBed 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Do you think feminists today need a better brand image? Or do you think it is unethical to see feminism as a brand?

[–]missaroo86 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Western alum here! Purple and proud!

[–]KaliYugaz 6 ポイント7 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Why do you believe that standard rights-based dentological ethical frameworks are superior to virtue ethics or feminist care ethics?

[–]g-c-a 3 ポイント4 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Should normative ethics be global or local? To clarify this question, international effort is desired to unify them in a certain direction or certain deviations should be tolerated? Is it inheretly arbitrary to do so (nihilistically speaking)?

[–]misstooth 10 ポイント11 ポイント  (3子コメント)

Hello. I'm going to ask a personal question but I think that it should shed light on some larger, public issues. Issues about the LGBTQ community usually seem framed in terms of how we should be treated rather than how we should ourselves act (unless it's simply to condemn us).

Many in the LGBTQ community see being queer or trans as an aspect of their identity. I can empathize with this because when I am pressured to dress in a cis-normative way it feels inauthentic. At the same time, I don't see the self as something that we just inherently have; it's something that we perform and construct. In this sense, I find it strange that I feel so compelled to perform or construct an identity that so many people hate and mock. This might seem like simply a psychological question, but what I'm wondering is what philosophical justifications could exist for being trans or genderqueer that don't don't rely on a preexisting intrinsic identity or self. The only justification I can find is resistance to unfair and arbitrary standards (something like what Judith Butler might argue for)-- although this seems a very reactionary way to construct oneself which is why it's perhaps more comforting to think of the self as something we already have and merely protect from unfair pressure to conform.

My second question is whether I have a moral duty, even if it doesn't override my other duties (such as to myself), to decrease the level of unhappiness of those around me by conforming to gender norms. When I go out with friends dressed in a way that I'll get harassed for, this doesn't just affect me but forces my friends to face such harassment as well. Unlike something like race, my gender expression is something I can control to an extent, so the question comes up regarding my rights to cause otherwise innocent people (friends etc) suffering in order to be what I see as more authentic.

Thanks for your time!

[–]SamanthaBrennan[S] 17 ポイント18 ポイント  (1子コメント)

I'm not sure how to answer your first question. I'm mulling. (And I know slow thinkers aren't suited to reddit but here we are!) As to your second question I don't think you have an obligation to make others happy with your appearance. Be yourself. If you are going think about effects anyway, you might also think about the positive effects of your appearance. You open up space for others to dress how they choose. Back to the first hard question, it's not either intrinsic identity or performance. There's lots of room in the middle. Partly it's about finding a community, friends, partners, being seen as who you are. Hope this helps.

[–]misstooth 3 ポイント4 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Thanks-- I appreciate your thoughts :)

[–]Whammster 6 ポイント7 ポイント  (1子コメント)

Is the distinction between feminists and egalitarians necessary?

[–]penpalthro 11 ポイント12 ポイント  (5子コメント)

What is objectification and when is it wrong?

[–]SamanthaBrennan[S] 33 ポイント34 ポイント  (2子コメント)

Treating a person as a mere means, and not as an end in him or herself? That's the short answer. After that it gets complicated. I think the right answer about when it's permissible to treat another person as an object involves consent.

[–]candypantsbabypants 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (0子コメント)

How do you feel about the argument and complaints from trans activists that the feminist movement is largely non-inclusive to trans women due to the focus on reproductive health and rights? And the tendency for women to equate biologically female things such as reproduction, vaginas, periods, etc, to womanhood?

[–]SquirrelTeamSix 6 ポイント7 ポイント  (0子コメント)

What is your argument to the point being made that a lot of radical feminists aren't fighting for equality, but superiority in some cases?

If you have one that is. I feel everyone should be equal for sure, but I feel some arguments aren't about being equal, they are about knocking someone down to make you feel or look better.

[–]idontknowanything001 5 ポイント6 ポイント  (1子コメント)

I've always intuitively understood and easily accepted the notion that systemic inequality needs to be dealt with in justice, economics and politics. votes, arrests, how someone is treated in the workplace etc...

But when it comes to culture I have a harder time accepting movements like feminisms. Mainly because we all play into our culture. All of us develop, buy, make decisions etc based on our own internal feelings and that shapes culture. So for example... instagram. My whole life I've heard about how men objectify women in advertising. I even wrote a big research paper on it in college. But then I log into instagram every day to see whats up on my business page and I see profile after profile after profile of women objectifying themselves for person gain. So, my question is... how do we make sense of that line between oppressors pushing an agenda against a group and a group taking responsibility for their own oppression?

[–]mustacheriot 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

I have a master's degree in bioethics. For that degree I studied many applied ethical issues in medicine and I also spent a good deal of time reading feminist ethics & philosophy. However, I ditched the field after graduating for a job in health policy & economics, in which I do quantitative research. Now I'm considering actually practicing medicine in conjunction with researching health policy because it seems like the amount of good I can do as an "ethicist" is minimal. Policy people in general do not listen to academic ethicists. It seems there is a major disjuncture between the discourses of policy and ethics. Do you think there is a disconnect between ethics and policy? Do you think this is a problem? If so, what can bridge the gap?

[–]iunoionnis 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (1子コメント)

I would like to ask you your thoughts on the historical dimension of childhood.

Already in the 19th century, many writers (e.g. Dickens, Zola, Marx) associate childhood with class. Many historians make these points as well. Working class children, it's argued, virtually had no "childhood" (insofar as we associate childhood with innocence, playtime, school, learning the piano, whatever). Instead, this family structure strictly belonged to the middle class (and perhaps even originated in the 19th century bourgeoisie).

The further back in history we go, the more differences we find in our ideas about what it means to be a child and have a childhood.

Yet even recent history (such as the rise and fall of Freudian psychoanalysis or changes in internet technology) suggest that our conceptions of childhood today might even be very different than, say, the 1960's or 70's.

Now, I'm not suggesting such historical conditions affect, say, our ability to decide whether a parent can decide whether their child can receive blood transfusions, as I understand there are many pressing legal issues in this area of research.

However, I was wondering what role (if any) does the historical development and/or possible historical contingency of childhood play in your analysis? If, like our gender roles, "childhood" is socially and historically constructed, is an ahistorical theory of childhood possible?

Thank you for your time.

[–]KyleG 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Can you direct me to foundational texts on privilege? My sense is that this was a framework created in academia to be descriptive, but now it's used outside of academia to be normative in (in my opinion) a dangerous way, and I really want to understand its sources, because I have no problem with identifying privileges in order to prevent people from, e.g., unfairly judging the less privileged. That sounds extremely reasonable.

I've asked friends for directions to foundational texts, but since they're just random people applying their ad hoc understanding of the terminology rather than educated in the field, they can't.

Help me, you're my only hope!

[–]Allesmoeglichee 4 ポイント5 ポイント  (1子コメント)

Whats your position on the 70ish cents to the dollar claim?

[–]leofofeo 5 ポイント6 ポイント  (0子コメント)

I (hispanice male) consider myself a feminist, but have encountered a subset of feminists who believe men can't call themselves feminists, only feminist allies. I'm fine with that, but do you think it's a valid distinction? And does it matter? That is, is it only important that I advocate and fight for the ideals of feminism, or is there an added benefit to men having the label of "feminists", as well? Thanks for taking the time to do this!

[–]quackquackoopz 28 ポイント29 ポイント  (28子コメント)

Feminism has an increasingly poor public image outside of feminist and Progressive echo chambers.

It faces ongoing charges of lack of relevance in the Western world, reduced to highlighting smaller and smaller perceived issues facing women (I'll call them micro-issues for the purposes of this AMA), the in-built and systematic demonisation of men and white people among others, widespread statistical manipulation and cart-before-the-horse methodology in studies, and so forth.

How can feminism reform to improve this image and adjust to a modern western world where women are the freest and most empowered they have ever been, and hold more rights and privileges than men and boys?

Thank you!

[–]SamanthaBrennan[S] 66 ポイント67 ポイント  (8子コメント)

Feminism has a great public image here in Canada. Our Prime Minister identifies as a feminist. Women's equality is a pretty mainstream view. It's the US, I'm assuming that's where you're coming from, that's the outlier here.

[–]KaliYugaz 26 ポイント27 ポイント  (3子コメント)

It faces ongoing charges of lack of relevance in the Western world

I'm not sure what you mean by a "lack of relevance". If you asked the average person whether men and women ought to relate to each other as equals, they would be overwhelmingly likely to say yes. And I doubt you would be complaining about some supposed feminist overreach if feminism wasn't relevant enough to appear as a threat to you.

A better question, one that I am very interested in hearing Dr. Brennan's (/u/SamanthaBrennan) answer to, is if she suspects that modern feminism has, to any extent, betrayed its revolutionary roots to become a tool of the powerful. Today feminism is often used as a moralistic justification to expand the number of privileged white women in boardrooms (Lean In!), to extend state control over funding and disciplinary procedures in academic institutions (end campus rape!), to provide cover for unethical invasions of foreign countries (save the Arab women!), and to get men to accept lower-paid "pink collar" jobs and unstructured part-time work now that stable, unionized manufacturing jobs have disappeared. People can see this very clearly, and often end up resenting feminism as a result. Is it time to go back to a more explicitly socialist feminism?

[–]lvi7 3 ポイント4 ポイント  (1子コメント)

Yes, most people believe in equality but they do not see feminism as representative of equality. Only 20% of people in the US identify as feminists despite almost everyone believing in equality.

[–]bluecanaryflood 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (0子コメント)

where women [...] hold more rights and privileges than men and boys?

Either this is asked in bad faith or the original poster is uninformed and deluded. Maybe both? Thanks for slogging through this, Dr. Brennan.

[–]profmcginnis 51 ポイント52 ポイント  (4子コメント)

Found the /r/The_Donald poster ("Identity politics is utterly cancerous.")

I have no idea if you are asking in good faith or not, or just spoiling for an argument.

Either way you are framing the issue in such a fashion that your interlocutor cannot possibly win: either they accept the premises of your question ("Feminism is bad: can it be not bad?") or will have to try and argue against vague, nebulous claims about heterogeneous social movements to an audience that has already decided to accept this framing.

Dr.Brennan is an academic philosopher and, yes, feminist. I've known her personally for many years, as a colleague and friend. It is not in the slightest true that her work, or the papers published in Feminist Philosophy Quarterly, where she serves as editor, is guilty of "demonisation of men and white people," "statistical manipulation," which are alleged problems of 'Western feminism.'

Go have a look: http://ir.lib.uwo.ca/fpq/

You might well disagree with the arguments, positions, and presuppositions found in the published works of actual feminist philosophers, but it is rude, false, and disingenuous to come into this AMA with a politely-phrased request to defend oneself from charges of academic fraud.

[–]chopsaver 8 ポイント9 ポイント  (0子コメント)

I think there are a lot of underlying assumptions you're making with this question, and perhaps fleshing it out with specific examples of what you mean with regards to e.g. "[women and girls holding] more rights and privileges than men and boys" in the western world will stimulate more productive discourse than just taking it as given, especially if you're unsure that the person you're addressing agrees that these claims are sound/obvious.

[–]ContraPositive 3 ポイント4 ポイント  (2子コメント)

Feminism has an increasingly poor public image outside of feminist and Progressive echo chambers.

I would say that is a questionable assumption. Maybe it has a poor image in conservative and sexist echo chambers like /r/The_Donald, but places like that don't represent the views of most people.

Millions of people also marched under a pro-feminist banned 4 days ago, and the president of the United States just signed an executive order to reduce access to abortion 3 days ago. Feminism seems pretty relevant to me.

Edit: Trump signed an executive order, not a bill. There likely would have been more pushback to a bill, as bills result from a more democratic process.

[–]90sFlip 3 ポイント4 ポイント  (0子コメント)

What do you think of the current state of feminism? I feel some people carry the banner as a trend rather than a thought-out ideology. Would this be considered unethical?

[–]Cassandretic 3 ポイント4 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Hi Professor Brennan! Thank you for posting.

I have a question about ethics in healthcare. The current trend in healthcare seems to be to disallow parents access to their children's records and doctors decreasing ages, from 15 now down to 12. I believe the rationale is so that children can feel safe disclosing issues with their doctors that they may not wish to with their parents. However, parents are still responsible for the health and safety of their children right up to the age of 18. Also, for parents of children with special needs, this offers further obstacles to providing and advocating for their healthcare. What is your opinion on this?

Second, there was an article on the CBC recently on the cost savings of physician-assisted death for the health care system. Your thoughts, and how that relates to those with disabilities as a minority from an ethics standpoint?

Thank you! (ps. first time poster in this sub, please let me know if I am not within rules)

[–]Hartagon 3 ポイント4 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Wouldn't both consequentialism and deontology dictate that the actions of the "left", at present, are wrong?

With regard to consequentialism, the rise and encouragement of identity politics has lead to a similarly large rise in right wing and nationalistic politics and now the election Donald Trump. The very things the "left" sought to diminish were empowered by the actions of those on the "left".

With regard to deontology, the actions of the "left" are pretty morally questionable at times, are they not (by deontological standards)? Some outright attack (with words) those on the "right", as well as whites, and white males in particular. Surely the combative nature of those on the "left" is contrary to what deontological ethics extol?

NOTE: When I say "left" and "right", I am not referring to all on the left or the right, I simply use it as shorthand to represent small parts of each respective side.

[–]FALQSC 3 ポイント4 ポイント  (1子コメント)

Do you think neoliberalism/capitalism is inherently sexist ?

[–]ChildofAbraham 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (4子コメント)

First of all, good for you for an obviously long and meaningful career.

Question - in today's world, where the most publicly available forum of communication is limited to 140 characters, how do we teach the kind of patience that is required to entertain and evaluate more complex thought, especially when it differs from our own worldview?

2nd question - do you have an anecdotal story of a powerful lesson coming from an unexpected source?

3rd question - what is your take on transgender athletes winning in female divisions? Will this issue be solved through the creation of transgender leagues, or how do you suggest we approach this discrepancy in way that is fair to all genders?

Thanks so much for spending your time!

[–]SamanthaBrennan[S] 5 ポイント6 ポイント  (3子コメント)

  1. I think there's room for 140 character tweets and long novels. We teach patience the way we always have by reading to our children, through music and theatre, by doing hard worthwhile things. And we meet people who disagree with us, who live differently, in fiction, theatre, music, and in life.
  2. I learned to be a better teacher through sports! See https://fitisafeministissue.com/2016/01/20/putting-my-beginner-pants-on/
  3. We only hear about transgender athletes when they win. So I think we might not be getting the full picture when we think about in terms of winning. But in lots of sports I'm not sure sex based categories are that useful anyway.

[–]existentialconflux 3 ポイント4 ポイント  (1子コメント)

But in lots of sports I'm not sure sex based categories are that useful anyway.

Mind sharing some examples?

[–]Necroleptique 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Hello Professor Brennan, and thank you for doing this AMA.

Do you think human gender identity can be thought of as a Wittgensteinian family resemblance concept ?

[–]Communizer 4 ポイント5 ポイント  (0子コメント)

What do you think about Judith Butlers work? Specifically about the reification and performativity of gender?

[–]Chatcher_15 4 ポイント5 ポイント  (1子コメント)

Hi Samantha! I'm a sophomore in college and just took my first philosophy course last semester, Art Theory. While the content always tied to art the greater themes were nearly all transcendent; I was going through some rough events at the time and the course helped me view my life in an entirely new light.

It made me think philosophy, to some extent, should be included more heavily in our high schools' curriculums to help kids grasp such universally relevant concepts that could really help them develop- what's your opinion on this?

[–]FilipeSantiagoLopes 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (5子コメント)

What are the causes of gender discrimination and lack of female rights?

[–]lucidlogik 3 ポイント4 ポイント  (7子コメント)

Are you just as confused by Third Wave Feminism as the rest of the world? It seems rife with moral relativism, which is abhorrent.

[–]75839021 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (5子コメント)

Can you expand on what you mean by this, perhaps by citing some examples? If anything, I think that contemporary feminism is highly moralistic in its outlook. Are they able to talk about why we should end objectification without (at least implicitly) talking about how objectification is wrong?

[–]SouffleStevens 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (1子コメント)

Is it that big a jump from "X is morally wrong" to "We ought not do X"?

Unless you have some view of ethics that says we should try to do as many wrong actions as possible, I'm not sure how those aren't just implied by each other.

[–]BackSeatGremlin 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (4子コメント)

Hi there professor.

Reseach done by researchers like yourself on a similar topic, micro-aggressions, has been taught in our Universities for a while now, and has led a whole new generation of University students to make wide rangung assumptions about large groups of people; some examples being white people are inherently racist, or all men are inherently misogynists. Assumptions that are patently false, yet have fostered a vitriolic and hateful mindset in college students in droves. Now I think it goes without saying this is an extreme detriment to society and open discourse.

My question is this; Do you think your work regarding micro-inequities, and its education will foster similar sentiments in the students who learn about it? If not, how do you think it will effect the University mindset? If so, what can we do to help prevent the formation of any negative stereotypes that may arise as a result?

Thank you for all the work you've done, you truly do have an impressive career, as I can see. Here's hoping you see and respond to this question!

[–]SamanthaBrennan[S] 17 ポイント18 ポイント  (0子コメント)

The literature on bias and on micro-inequities should help I think. It's not like men make these mistakes and women don't, in the case of gender bias. Both men and women are biased against work by women when they know the sex of the author. It's not about blaming people. It's about finding ways to address bias and fix results.

[–]ContraPositive 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (0子コメント)

It's not that white people are inherently racist, it's that all people raised in racist societies tend to have racist implicit attitudes. Same goes for attitudes on sex, gender, etc. You should re-read the evidence you're citing.

[–]SouffleStevens 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (1子コメント)

white people are inherently racist

Whiteness as a concept is racist, but no, people with light concentrations of melanin are not inherently biased against people with more melanin. It is as flexible as the society that made it and has been expanded over time to include more groups that have assimilated to some standard so that they are spared from racial discrimination. At various times in American history, Irish, Italians, Greeks, Slavs, and Jews were not considered white, but now they generally are. Their skin didn't get any lighter, but the grouping and the amount of discrimination they faced changed dramatically. Afrikaners and Englishmen are different ethnicities from different lands with different languages, religions, and customs, but Apartheid only looked at who counted as "White" for the granting/removal of social privileges. Something similar has happened in all nations colonized by European powers that had large amounts of immigration.

all men are inherently misogynists

It depends on what you mean. Are people, by virtue of being male, inherently hateful towards women? No. Do most of the gendered norms given to men who grew up and live in a patriarchal society reinforce misogyny and sexism? Yes. That training doesn't go away just because you make some conscious effort to treat women fairly or even if you recognize that you're doing it. This point is usually used by radical feminists who want to make a point that society is still, and may likely be for a very long time, inherently slanted towards men and their desires, no matter how many laws we pass or how hard we try to give women a fair shake.

[–]caspain1397 4 ポイント5 ポイント  (3子コメント)

Do you think gender will dissolve over time? I also don't understand gender, when someone says be man what the hell does that mean? What makes a man a man if gender is based on how one feels? A woman a woman? Do people cling to their gender to justify their sexuality?

[–]SamanthaBrennan[S] 6 ポイント7 ポイント  (1子コメント)

Yeah, I'm not sure either. It's hard and complicated and also frustrating and fascinating. I hope it becomes less significant and more playful. That's what I hope.

[–]funnyman1122 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (5子コメント)

How do you feel social media has affected the feminist movement for further generations? And in what ways would you try to improve it or what changes you would make?

[–]SamanthaBrennan[S] 10 ポイント11 ポイント  (4子コメント)

I teach a course on digital ethics and we have a section on gender. It's fascinating subject. I love how women have made certain places on the internet our own. I hate how trolling feminists and making nasty comments to women seems to be a big hobby for some men on the internet. What I like best is the expanded sense of feminist community. What I like least is harassment but I don't have any good answers. More transparency?

[–]Sarlocked 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (1子コメント)

I want your opinion on free will. Do you think we have free will? If we don't, or rather if someone believe they have no control over what they do, how do they live their life?

[–]SamanthaBrennan[S] 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

We have to live as if we have free will. There's no other way. Do we actually have free will? I think so, yes. But it's not my particular area of philosophy.

[–]drakewolf24 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (2子コメント)

Do you have any insight/advice on starting a dialogue with people who react negatively towards feminist topics? Perhaps you have had students who were not initially interested?

I took a public speaking class and for one assignment, presented to my class about issues faced by women in science fields. It felt difficult to convince the class that things are still unequal, and with the evidence I showed, it felt like I was complaining without offering solutions.

I feel like feminism has become an unpopular subject, that talking about it is considered whining, and that "feminists" are perceived as fat, ugly women who study liberal arts and complain about their low salary (I notice this especially on reddit). It is like the message behind it has been lost, and instead the people behind it are misrepresented and insulted. What can be done to help alleviate this?

[–]SamanthaBrennan[S] 9 ポイント10 ポイント  (1子コメント)

What about feminist ideas that can't possibility devolve into discussions of choice and lifestyle? I talk about sexual assault and workplace sexual harassment. Surely no one hears that as whining? What about feminist history? Voting.

[–]eitherorsayyes 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Thank you for doing this AMA. I'm not focused in Feminism, but I have a few books. One which stood out was Mohanty's. From how she talks about herself in her book, it sounds like she's a known name.

In 2003, Mohanty's "Feminism Without Borders" includes a response to her earlier work called "Under Western Eyes." In her update, she says, "Globalization colonized women's as well as men's lives around the world, and we need an anti-imperialist, anticapitalist, and contextualized feminist project to expose and make visible the various, overlapping forms of subjugation of women's lives" (p236).

I've been curious what this would look like. When I saw the protests, it made me think of that passage above. Mohanty cites for a bottom up approach, or an atomic level of change by teaching the younger generations, learning from students, shifting attitudes, etc.

If you agree with Mohanty, what are your thoughts on this "project" that will expose and make visible subjugation? Do you think her approach works?

Thank you again!

[–]logonomicon 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

With the (left leaning) public's interest in facts and what seems to be a return to big T truth at the same time that politics are adapting to better understand and addressed the concerns of the oppressed:

Does it seem like there is a meaningful way to pursue Critical goals and ideas in a Positivist or Post-Positivist framework? Can there be a Critical Post Positivism?

[–]kurtgustavwilckens -1 ポイント0 ポイント  (1子コメント)

Hi there! Nice to have you here. Thanks for coming.

I label myself a feminist and I'm somewhat involved with local feminist activism.

I'm currently very concerned about the issue of how to reconcile persuasion with combativeness in the context of Feminist militancy. I think that the following statements are true:

  • Bellicosity, a revolutionary attitude, rebelliousness, agitation and sometimes, maybe, some degree of violence may be necessary for active militancy for a cause. I think these attitudes are necessary to establishing oneself as a political actor in an arena that will only listen to people who are loud enough, and that facing an unfair, violent and pervasive enemy makes these sorts of attitudes necessary. Also, they may be necessary in order to galvanize, unify and "rile up" one's own base.

  • At the same time, I believe there is a clear "roof" or a sort of "diminishing returns" on belicose, rebellious, "loud" attitudes and arguments when it comes to persuading people who may not directly oppose you but that find themselves turned off by the sort of attitudes described above. I frequently found myself "preaching to the choir" in regards to Feminism, voicing things that we already know for an already consolidated audience and having a lot of difficulty to reach the people that are actually in need of persuasion.

I honestly think Feminism is facing problems regarding this sort of "duality" of political activism (be loud enough to be heard, not loud enough to be ignored) and, seeing how, globally, we are facing in the recent years a sort of "receding" of the left in front of the right (and I absolutely place Feminism within the spectrum of the left, and maybe even put it, currently, as the tip of it's spear) I feel this supports my diagnosis of there being a problem of the left in general (and feminism in particular) in reaching the people "in the middle".

Would you agree in the diagnosis? Have you had any similar thoughts as an internal critique of feminism at the political level? Do you think I'm totally off base? I'd be really interested in hearing a Feminist scholar's perspective on this.

Thank you so much for your time.

[–]robotguy4 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (3子コメント)

Hi, this question might be a bit off topic but how would one implement an ethics for AI? Should said system permeate every aspect of the programming or only specific instructions?

How would this system differ between lower than human intelligence AI and humanlike AI?

Should said ethics be hardcoded or taught?

[–]SamanthaBrennan[S] 7 ポイント8 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Yes, off topic but hard and fun. I teach digital ethics for undergrads and I wonder lots about machine ethics. I think lots about driverless cars and trolley problems, for example. But I don't have any good answers.

[–]autranep 3 ポイント4 ポイント  (0子コメント)

I'm machine learning engineer. Not even we know how to answer this, how could she possibly know? Also no one knows anything about general intelligence currently. We don't have anything close to a mathematical formalism of AGI, talking about implementation details is jumping the gun tremendously.